Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Government Stock and other Securities Investment Company Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Bill [Lords],

Scottish Insurance Companies (Superannuation Fund) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Lancashire Quarter Sessions Bill [Lords],

Port of London Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Worthing Extension) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS (CONSOLIDATION).

The following Notice of Motion stood upon the Order Paper in the name of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS:
That so much of the Lords Message [27th March] as relates to the Resolutions 'That it is expedient that in the present Session all Private Bills for the exclusive purpose of consolidating the provisions of existing Private Acts of Parliament be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament: That the Joint Committee shall not take into consideration any Petition against any such Bill which seeks to alter the existing law' be now considered:
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Resolution:
That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I am prepared to move this Motion now, but, if any Member takes objection, I shall postpone the Motion until Thursday.

HON. MEMBERS: Object!

Consideration deferred until Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCES.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India
whether he is yet in a position to communicate the result of his reference to the Government of India on the subject of compensatory allowances?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The matter is under active consideration by the Secretary of State in Council, and I hope a decision will not be long delayed. As I have promised, I will corninunicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my Noble Friend state whether the Secretary of State did not say that all officials will be treated alike? Is that the case now?

Earl WINTERTON: That does not seem to arise in the slightest degree out of the question on the Paper. I was asked whether I was in a position to communicate the result of the reference to the Government of India, and I have told my hon. Friend that I am not.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: When will my Noble Friend reply?

Earl WINTERTON: I have told him, as soon as I am ready.

DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any special chemical knowledge was required from the applicants for the Dead Sea salts concessions; and whether Mr. Novomesky and Major Tulloch have any such qualifications?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): No, Sir. As the House is aware, applications were invited by public advertisement. No reference was made in the advertisement to special chemical knowledge. I have already made statements in the House in regard to Mr. Novomesky's qualifications.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Surely it is very necessary to have chemical qualifications?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a repetition of the question on the Paper.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in regard to the Dead Sea salts concession, any conditions were laid down as regards the amount of finance to be guaranteed by the applicants who sent in their tenders on 31st December, 1926; whether any time limit was fixed; and whether the conditions laid down as regards finance have been complied with by the applicants who have been selected in principle?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; it was not practicable to lay down any such conditions when tenders were invited.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any statement regarding the Dead Sea concession?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. I am still in correspondence with the High Commissioner on the subject.

Sir F. HALL: Is it the intention of the Government to give preference to British capital, if it can be produced, in preference to capital emanating from other sources?

Mr. AMERY: We naturally desire to give preference to British capital wherever we can, but under the terms of the mandate we are precluded from giving actual direct preference as between British and other subjects. We have to treat all people alike as far as the mandate is concerned.

Sir F. HALL: Assuming that both British capital and capital from other sources were safe, will my right hon. Friend undertake that, all things being equal, the preference in these circumstances shall be given to British capital? Surely that is reasonable?

Mr. AMERY: I could not give that undertaking. It is, however, a case where tenders were out for a considerable time, and where eventually one applicant was considered as having offered the best tender. Whether that applicant is in a satisfactory position to carry out the terms of the tender is a matter still under discussion and, if he cannot satisfy us on this point, then the matter will be opened again. Then the point of view of my hon. Friend will come into consideration.

Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand then that at the present time, practically speaking, someone has been accepted in principle?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, that is the position. Some time ago, one of several applicants was accepted in principle, but we are still trying to satisfy ourselves as to whether the applicant is, from our point of view, able to satisfy the conditions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman gratified by this extraordinary interest shown in Palestine by the Conservative party?

Mr. THURTLE: Is this concession really at the disposition of the British Government and not of the country in which this lake is?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, it is the Government of Palestine that is dealing with it.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it not possible to press for an early decision in the matter The discussion as to whether these gentlemen have sufficient financial qualifications has surely been going on for a year?

Mr. AMERY: I do not think it is as long as that. I personally am pressing it as far as I can.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has my right hon. Friend not had an application from a very powerful British group, with plenty of money behind them to work this concession?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: After other people have done the work.

RUBBER ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Rubber Advisory Committee last met; and if it is still in being?

Mr. AMERY: The Committee last met on the 8th of December. I have invited the members to continue to act for so long as the Restriction Scheme remains in force.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TEXTILE GOODS CONTRACTS (BELGIAN GOVERNMENT).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 16.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the contract for 34,000 metres of khaki drill, referred to in the Board of Trade Journal (ref. A.X., 6,143) for 1st April, 1928, has been placed with a British firm; and whether any contracts for textile goods required by the Belgian Government have been placed in this country during the last five years?

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Is my hon. Friend aware that the announcement of such tenders in the "Board of Trade Journal" induces British manufacturers to tender for them, very often at great cost, when as a matter of fact they have no opportunity of getting the contract?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. It is better to place the responsibility of producing a tender on the British manufacturer than that we should hold up all the particulars and specifications.

Mr. RAMSDEN: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Belgian Government does not place any such contract in a foreign country?

Mr. HACKING: No, I am not aware that the Belgian Government never places a contract in a foreign country.

BANKRUPTCIES, SCARBOROUGH.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of persons who have gone into bankruptcy in the town of Scarborough during the last three years?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The numbers of bankruptcies in Scarborough during 1925, 1926 and 1927 have been 24, 22 and 12, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. DAY: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of carcases of
animals condemned in connection with foot-and-mouth disease that have been cremated and the number that have been buried during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): During the 12 months ended 31st March, 1928, 14,714 animals were cremated on account of foot-and-mouth disease and 621 were buried.

Mr. DAY: Would it not be better to cremate all these animals?

Mr. GUINNESS: They always are cremated where it is possible. Occasionally, an outbreak occurs in a residential area, where cremation is out of the question.

FARM TENURES (STATISTICS).

Mr. R. YOUNG: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any record is kept in his Department of the number of farms in England and Wales and the tenure on which they are held; and, if so, how many are freehold farms, and in the case of leasehold farms how many are held on long leases and how many are let on short leases?

Mr. GUINNESS: The number of agricultural holdings as returned on 4th June, 1927, in England and Wales was 401,734, and the number returned as owned by their occupiers was 146,887. Apart from the above, I have no information which would enable me to give the number of holdings held under any given form of tenure.

MILK PRODUCTION.

Mr. R. YOUNG: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount of milk for commercial purposes produced during the past two years: will he say how much of it was pasteurised milk, Grade A milk, and Grade A tuberculin-tested milk; and how much described as clean milk, purified milk etc., was produced for consumption?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply is rather long, I propose with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The total amount of milk produced in England and Wales during the past two years, exclusive of milk fed to calves and
pigs but inclusive of milk manufactured into various products both on and off farms as well as milk consumed in liquid form, has been estimated as follows:—


June to May.


Million gallons.


1925–26
…
…
…
1,135


1926–27
…
…
…
1,150

As regards the proportions of these quantities which may be classified as officially designated milks, it is estimated that "Certified" "Grade A (T.T.)" and "Grade A" milks constitute approximately 1 per cent. of the milk consumed as liquid milk. No reliable estimate for "Pasteurised" milk is available. The terms "Clean" and "Purified" are not recognised as official designations; they are entirely relative terms and as they signify no definite or absolute standard, the quantities of milk sold under them are unknown.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) ACT (ENGINEERS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that a number of engineers who are engaged on a threshing machine used for threshing corn are excluded from the benefits of the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act, 1923, during the period when they are engaged in repairing the threshing machine off farm premises; and whether he will consider an amending Act to bring such workmen within the meaning of the principal Act throughout the year?

Mr. GUINNESS: This matter has been brought to my notice. I am not empowered to interpret the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, which can only be interpreted by the Courts, and am not at present contemplating any amending Act.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this involves undue hardship for a certain section of men who are obliged for a portion of their time to be working in agriculture, and does he not think that they should be brought within the meaning of the Act?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is not a matter in which I have any power of action. It is a matter for the Courts.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not acknowledge the hardship? Does he not think that he should introduce a short Bill to make it possible for these people to come under the Act?

Mr. GUINNESS: The matter should be cleared up before any action can be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN LANDS (FORESHORE RIGHTS).

Captain GARRO-JONES: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the rights of the people on nearly every part of the coast to access to the foreshore, he will make no conveyances of Crown lands without safeguarding those rights?

Mr. GUINNESS: A conveyance of Crown or other lands would not override any public rights there may be over the lands comprised therein and no special safeguards therefore appear to be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — EARL'S COURT EXHIBITION BUILDING.

Mr. KELLY: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works whether it is intended to acquire land at Earl's Court, London, for the purpose of erecting an exhibition building; if so, will he say when plans were prepared for such building; has any estimate of the cost been made; and will it be laid before Parliament?

Mr. HACKING: I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative. I understand, however, that the Underground Railway Company contemplate erecting an exhibition building on the Earl's Court site, and should this scheme materialise, my Department will discuss with the company the possibility of the annual British Industries Fair being held in the new building.

Mr. KELLY: Does that mean that the Government will have any financial responsibility with regard to this building, while it remains in the possession of the railway company?

Mr. HACKING: No, the Government will have no financial responsibility for the building.

Mr. LUNN: Would it not be more economical for the Government to purchase a site and erect a building which would be under their control, than to be continually paying these large sums for buildings which are necessary for sometimes useful exhibitions?

Mr. HACKING: I do not think that that can arise. It is a very interesting subject, which I would like to discuss with my hon. Friend at some time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR-REFINING INDUSTRY (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. KELLY: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour the rates of wages paid to men and women engaged in the sugar-refining trade in Great Britain for a normal week; and what are the number of hours which constitute a. normal week in that trade?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): So far as I am aware there is no general agreement fixing rates of wages for workpeople engaged in sugar refining, and the information at my disposal is insufficient to enable me to state the rates most generally paid, which, it is understood, vary with different firms. According to the latest information in my possession, the normal hours usually average 47 per week.

Mr. KELLY: Is there any interim reconstruction committee or joint industrial council in connection with this industry, or even a trade board?

Mr. BETTERTON: That matter does not arise out of the question. In any case, I must ask the hon. Member to put it down.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions of employment in this industry are likely to be considerably better in the future, thanks to the Budget?

Mr. KELLY: Arising out of the hon. Gentleman's reply—and apart from the attempted advertisement—will he make some inquiries into the hours and wages in this industry?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot tell if the information will be given to us, or if information is given to us, on terms, and, if it is to be regarded as confidential, I cannot assist the hon. Member in the matter. I can only suggest that he should put down a further question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a number of engineers who are engaged on a threshing machine used for threshing corn on farms during part of the year, and who are engaged on other engineering work for the remaining part of their time, are excluded from participating in the unemployment insurance scheme; and will he consider amending the present law so that this class of workman can be insured in future?

Mr. BETTERTON: It is not possible on the information given in the question to say whether the men mentioned are insurable for any part of their employment. In so far as these men are held to be employed in agriculture they are excepted from unemployment insurance. As regards the second part of the question, I can add nothing to the reply given by nay right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) on 22nd November, 1926.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that his Department has already indicated, by a reply to a question, that men who are part time employed on agriculture and part time on engineering are excepted from the unemployment insurance scheme; and does he not think, since his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will not accept them as agricultural labourers and he will not accept them as insured persons, that something ought to be done to regularise the position of these men?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the hon. Member knows, it is quite impossible to generalise, and one can only give an opinion on the facts of a particular case. It depends, in each case, on whether the major part of the work comes under the description of agricultural work or not.
If the hon. Member gives me the facts of any particular case he has in mind, I will give him the best opinion I can on it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that a case was submitted to his Department and that all threshing machine workers, who are employed part time on a firm's premises and part time on farms looking after the machines have been excluded? In view of the fact that they are excluded from the insurance scheme, does he not think that they are being treated as "neither fish, flesh, fowl nor good red herring" and that something ought to be done to put them in a reasonable position?

Mr. BETTERTON: On the facts put by the hon. Member in his supplementary question, I have no doubt the decision given formally was right.

Mr. KELLY: Seeing that men who are sent out by firms to look after these machines are considered to come under the unemployment insurance scheme, will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter and see why these other people are denied an opportunity of coming under the Act?

Mr. BETTERTON: As I have said, I will give the best opinion I can on the facts of any case submitted, but I cannot generalise without knowing the specific facts.

Mr. MONTAGUE: In view of the fact that agricultural workers are excluded from the benefits of the scheme because of their low wages, would it not be advisable that a standard should be taken other than the proportion of hours employed in engineering as against agriculture?

TRAINING CENTRES (BRITISH TOOLS).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if the tenders for tools to be used in the training of the unemployed are certified to be of British manufacture only; whether the material used in the making of the tools is all British; and if the successful firm or firms are on the King's Roll?

Mr. BETTERTON: Implements and tools required for the Ministry of Labour training centres are bought by His Majesty's Office of Works and not by my Department; but I am informed that
they are all required to be of British manufacture except in a few instances, such as certain types of farm implements, where, for the purposes of training, the Ministry require foreign goods. I understand that His Majesty's Office of Works do not find it practicable always to specify British materials. It is a condition of the acceptance of the tender of a British firm with more than 25 employés that it should be on the King's Roll.

Mr. KELLY: Is it the general practice of the various Departments, particularly the Admiralty, in purchasing tools, to see that they are of British manufacture?

WOOLLEN TEXTILE INDUSTRY.

Mr. MACKINDER (for Mr. RILEY): 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons employed in the woollen textile industry in Great Britain and also the total number of persons employed in the industry?

Mr. BETTERTON: At 1st July, 1927, there were in Great Britain 238,610 insured persons aged 16 to 64, inclusive, classified as belonging to the wool textile industry. At 26th March, 1928, 16,105 such persons were recorded as unemployed, including 9,467 who were temporarily stopped from the service of their employers. I am unable to state the total number of persons employed in the industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (ASSEMBLIES BILL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the paragraphs or Clauses of the Bill recently before the Egyptian Assembly for the regulation of public meetings are objected to by His Majesty's Government, and the grounds for such objection?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The hon. and gallant Member will find full explanations of the points in the Bill which are open to objection and of the grounds on which objection is based in the White Paper which is being laid to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — MORPHINE (BRITISH EXPORTS).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether he is aware that the world output of morphine has increased between 1921 and 1926 from 30 to 60 tons; and whether, in view of the statement of the Italian representative to the League of Nations that the British Government had concealed the real figures of British drug exports, he has any official information to explain the difference between the amount of drugs imported into America and the amount admitted by British exporters?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. A statistical summary recently issued by the League gives the production for 1926 as 40,245 kilos and the production for 1921 as 29,657 kilos (about 40 and 30 tons respectively), but complete statistics are not available. Both the figures in question are incomplete, and the figure for 1921 more so than that for 1926. Any comparison, therefore, between them would be unsafe. Further, the 1926 figure includes large quantities of morphine which were produced solely for transformation into non-dangerous products, such as codein. The actual quantities of morphine manufactured for sale as such were far smaller. So far as Great Britain is concerned the manufacture of morphine has shown a steady decrease during the last five years. I am not aware that the Italian representative on the Advisory Committee charged His Majesty's Government with concealing their drug exports. He called attention to the fact that the amount of raw opium returned by Great Britain as exported to the United States was less than the amount of raw opium returned by the Government of the United States as imported from Great Britain. This discrepancy is being examined by the two Governments, but is probably due in part to the fact that the returns of the two Governments relate to different periods, the British returns, being for the calendar year, the United States returns for the fiscal year from July to July, and in part to the fact that opium sold from Great Britain may not be actually exported from Great Britain but may be conveyed direct from a foreign port to the United States. The British figures are official figures compiled from the export licences issued by the Home Office, and there is no reason to question their accuracy.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: If I submit to the hon. Gentleman an extract from the British Press reporting a definite state Sir. The offer of a site for a new post ment by the Italian representative, I have office and telephone exchange has now no doubt he will have it investigated been accepted; and arrangements are in I refer to the statement attributed to the train for a commencement of the new Italian representative that the British building in the current financial year. Government are concealing the figures.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should certainly be very pleased to receive anything which the hon. Member cares to send me.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures which he has read out do not include one showing that the total world requirement for medicinal purposes is only 15 tons, and that at least twice as much is being manufactured?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is that the result of prohibition?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why should we not take drastic steps to prevent an excessive amount being manufactured and sent out by profit-making firms in this country, over and above what is required?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It. is for that reason that we have ratified a Convention setting up a board of control which will give us more control.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why not follow the example of the French Government and declare it a Government monopoly and so check the manufacture?

Sir F. HALL: Is that a Free Trade principle?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, with dangerous drugs.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE, BRAINTREE, ESSEX.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General if lie is now in a position to give a decision as regards the acquisition of a, site for a new post office at Braintree, Essex; whether he is aware that, owing to the increasing size of this town, the present post office provides insufficient facilities for the public and also inadequate accommodation for the staff?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): Yes, Sir. The offer of a site for a new post office and telephone exchange has now been accepted; and arrangement of the new building in the current financial year.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERAL RESOURCES, SCOTLAND (SURVEY).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider the desirability of arranging, by a commission or otherwise, for a complete geophysical survey of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, in order that the mineral resources of those regions may be scientifically explored?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): I am advised that geophysical methods of exploration for minerals are at present largely in the experimental stage. His Majesty's Geological Survey have recently undertaken a series of tests, which are still in progress, to determine the value of the gravitational method in detecting geological structures. In addition, under a scheme financed by the Empire Marketing Board and the Australian Government, experimental geophysical investigations are about to begin in Australia. It. is considered inadvisable at present to undertake a large and costly survey on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SCOTTISH OFFICE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any reorganisation of the Scottish Office is in contemplation; and whether additional duties are proposed for the Under Secretary of State?

Major ELLIOT: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How is it that the Under-Secretary is engaged on the Budget this year?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS (PROSECUTIONS).

Captain GUNSTON: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
whether his attention has been called to a prosecution by the police for an alleged offence in contravention of the Hyde Park regulations; and whether, in view of the results of recent prosecutions, he is satisfied that sufficient care is taken to establish the trustworthiness of the evidence before the charge is made?

Sir PARK GOFF: 42.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the suggestion of the Metropolitan Police Magistrate to refer cases under the public parks bye-laws to the Chief Commissioner of Police before a charge is preferred; and what disciplinary action he is prepared to take with regard to the police in plain clothes or uniform who are entrusted with the regulations of the public parks bye-laws?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 43.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the recent case before Mr. Cancellor, at the Marlborough Street Police Court, where two persons of good repute and position were arrested and charged by policemen in plain clothes for an alleged offence against public decency in Hyde Park; whether he is aware that the charge was dismissed by the learned Magistrate with costs against the police; what action is being taken with reference to Mr. Cancellor's suggestion that in cases of the kind police officers in charge of stations should send their reports to headquarters with a view to proceedings by summons being instituted, if deemed desirable, in place of summary Police Court proceedings; and if he will explain why the park regulations are not enforced by uniformed policemen rather than by plain clothes detectives?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I fully recognise the gravity of the issues which arise in connection with this case. I have to consider with the appropriate authorities whether the police officers concerned were guilty of perjury or of any breach of duty. This is a matter that, in justice to the officers, who I may say were specially selected men of long experience and with unblemished records, must be examined calmly and dispassionately, and the House will, I am sure, recognise that it is not possible for me to make a final statement on that matter to-day.
There will be no unnecessary delay and I will make a full statement at the earliest possible moment. Apart from any question of the conduct of individual officers, a general question of police procedure arises and that question I propose to refer to the Committee on Street Offences, within whose terms of reference it comes.

Captain GUNSTON: Will my right hon. Friend's court of inquiry be composed entirely of police officers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no question of a court of inquiry at the moment. I am the court of inquiry. I have already seen the Chief Commissioner personally, and I am making very careful investigations to decide whether it is necessary to set up a court of inquiry, or whether, as I say, the officers are guilty of perjury, in which case the matter would be submitted, of course, to another Court.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that the officers, when they made the arrest, were in plain clothes and were on plain clothes duty with the authority and under the instruction of their superior officer?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to reply to the last paragraph of my question, as to why the park regulations are not enforced by uniformed policemen rather than by plain clothes detectives, and, further, will he say whether it is the object of himself and the police to act as censors of morals in these cases or merely to prevent annoyance to respectable people using Hyde Park?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In reply to the first supplementary question, there are 21 police engaged in Hyde Park; 19 of them are in uniform and two of them in plain clothes, so that the vast majority are already in uniform. In regard to the second point raised by my hon. Friend, it is not a question of morals at all, but it is the bounden duty of the police to see that public parks are not used in such a way as to be not only an offence but a disgrace to people who desire to use them.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the police themselves very much object to being dressed in plain clothes, with rubber soles, and that it puts a premium on blackmail?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not aware of anything of the kind. If my hon. and gallant Friend will bring me any statement to confirm that, I will go into it, but I very respectfully think it is not the case.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that the parks should be better lighted, so that such complaints cannot be made?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, the whole question is a very difficult one, and I am only responsible for the police side of it. If I find that that is the case, I will make representations to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. HAYES: Is it not a fact that frequent representations have been made from New Scotland Yard to the right hon. Gentleman's Department that there should be additional lighting arrangements in Hyde Park and on Primrose Hill, where similar complaints have arisen in years gone by?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am bound to admit personally, after such investigations as I have made up to the moment, that additional lighting facilities would be extraordinarily useful.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (STRANGERS).

Viscount SANDON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider introducing legislation, on the lines of the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1908, to bring strangers who misconduct themselves in the galleries or other parts of the House within the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir; I do not consider any alteration in the present procedure desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HEAVY MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED).

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 48.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any complaints as to the speed of
heavy motor vehicles and of damage to buildings caused by the vibration set up by them; and whether he will take early steps to confine such vehicles to their legal speed limits and to protect the owners of houses adjacent to main roads?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I think there is some reason to hope that vibration caused by heavy traffic will decrease in the future owing to the improvements which are continually being made in road surfaces and in the design and construction of heavy motor vehicles. As regards the driving of vehicles at excessive speeds, the enforcement of the law is a matter for the police

NEW ROADS (CONSTRUCTION).

Mr. KELLY: 49.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any applications for the construction of new roads are before the Ministry for consideration; and, if so, will he give a list of such applications?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is impossible to include in a reply to a Parliamentary question a list of new road projects in various stages of examination, but particulars of the more important schemes are included in the Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund, which also contains a statement of the grants made towards the construction of new roads.

PASSENGER FARES.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 50.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will publish, in so far as they relate to London, a summary of the representations received up to 3rd May from five local councils and four associations on the subject of increased passenger fares, together with the full replies of the companies concerned?

Colonel ASHLEY: When I have received and considered the replies of the companies concerned, I propose, in ordinary course, to communicate with the authorities from whom I have received representations.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many replies he has received up to now?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think, none, but I hope to get the most important one tomorrow.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the authorities the replies he receives from the companies?

Colonel ASHLEY: No doubt my communications will be almost entirely based on the replies I receive from the companies.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is there any reason why there should be secrecy maintained in these matters? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish the replies he receives?

Colonel ASHLEY: There is nothing to prevent these five local authorities and four associations sending to the newspapers the applications they have sent to me.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Will it be possible to say what additional toll has been extracted from the public by this additional monopoly that has been created?

Colonel ASHLEY: That has nothing to do with the question.

Mr. R. MORRISON: In effect, does it not mean that there is only one omnibus company concerned?

Colonel ASHLEY: I think the London General Omnibus Company, of course, is easily the predominant company concerned.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that what we want to know is what the companies have to say in defence of this raising of the fares, and cannot he have the text of that defence published?

Colonel ASHLEY: If and when the local authorities make proper application to me to adjudicate in relation to the matter, I will go into the whole matter, and no doubt the decision that I come to will be made public.

RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the main conclusions in the Report of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee upon the five Railway (Road Transport) Bills; and if the Advisory Committee made any recommendations to him as to the publication of the Report?

Colonel ASHLEY: The answer to both parts of this question is in the negative. I would remind the hon. Member that the Bills to which he refers are at present being considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, and that I have already in my Report to the Committee referred to all the matters to which, in my opinion, it is necessary that I should direct the Committee's attention.

Mr. BROWN: Did the Advisory Committee make any representations at all about the right hon. Gentleman's action or inaction in connection with the publication of the Report?

Colonel ASHLEY: They sent me their views on this important subject.

Mr. BROWN: Are those views in favour of or against publication.

Colonel ASHLEY: It is not usual to publish views on Private Bills given to the Minister.

Mr. R. MORRISON: If the right hon. Gentleman does not consider it expedient to publish this Report while the Committee proceedings are taking place upstairs, will he consider whether it would be advisable to publish it before the Third Reading of the Bills takes place here?

Colonel ASHLEY: No. The very considerable responsibility of tendering advice to the Committee must rest with the Minister, and therefore he has to put forward his views on his own responsibility.

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman of the opinion that any comparable situation to the present has ever arisen in connection with the railways and roads?

Colonel ASHLEY: That would be a matter of opinion.

Mr. BROWN: rose
—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had a series of supplementary questions.

Mr. BROWN: The Ministry of Transport should be called the Railway House.

Oral Answers to Questions — OILS IMPORT DUTY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any estimate of the amount of tax already collected on paraffin and other lamp oils before the tax was abandoned; what happens to this money; whether retailers and wholesalers, respectively, are expected to return the extra money paid by customers; and whether he has received any assurances from the principal oil companies concerned that the purchasers will be reimbursed?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): No tax had in fact been collected by the Exchequer on kerosene in the period between the 24th April and 1st May. But directions have been given for the discharge of any security, whether given by way of bond or deposit of cash, which had been taken by the Customs and Excise Department for payment of duty in respect of kerosene on the Finance Bill becoming law. This disposes of the matter so far as the responsibility of the Treasury is concerned. The hon. and gallant Member has no doubt observed in the Press that the leading oil companies have announced the reduction of the wholesale prices of kerosene by 4d. a gallon as from the 2nd May. They have further stated that, while they do not control the retail price of kerosene, they are making arrangements to refund to wholesale buyers the 4d. per gallon tax included in wholesale kerosene prices since the introduction of the tax. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that, as a rule, the refund will reach purchasers who paid an increased price during the week in question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman had any communication with the wholesale companies affected, in order to get from them some assurance that their retail customers will refund the money to their customers Are any steps being taken through the wholesale companies, which is probably the only way in which it can be done, to see that the ordinary householder is not deprived of this reimbursement?

Mr. SAMUEL: I will read the gist of my reply again: The wholesale companies say
they are making arrangements to refund to wholesale buyers the 4d. per gallon tax.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But that does not affect the ordinary private customer. Is anything being done to help him to get his money back?

Mr. SAMUEL: Nothing can be done by us. But if the customer goes into the shop where he has made the purchase and asks for a refund of tax, every respectable shopkeeper, as a matter of honesty, quite apart from his desire not to lose his customer's good will, will without doubt refund the tax money, as the shopkeeper will not be called upon to pay the tax himself.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many cases, in most country districts, the money has already been refunded to the purchaser?

Mr. SAMUEL: That is what I should expect.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLOMON ISLANDS (INQUIRY).

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the inquiry will be commenced in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate into the circumstances of the murderous attacks which took place on Government officials at Verakone, Guadalcanal, in February, 1927, and Sinarango, Malaita, in October, 1927?

Mr. AMERY: The Commissioner is due to reach Tulagi on the 27th June and will commence his investigations in the Protectorate as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. DAY: Why has there been a delay of 16 months before this inquiry is being held?

Mr. AMERY: I do not think that it is anything like 16 months since the incident itself happened.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING IBN SAUD (CONVERSATIONS).

Mr. DAY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the meeting between His Majesty King Ibn Saud and Sir Gilbert Clayton has taken place at Jeddah; and can he state what, if any, decisions were arrived at?

Mr. AMERY: Sir G. Clayton arrived on the 2nd of May. He expected to start conversations with King Ibn Saud four or five days later.

Mr. DAY: Will the result of the conversations be published?

Mr. AMERY: We will wait and see.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH TRUST, LIMITED.

Mr. LUMLEY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to the claim made against His Majesty's Government by the Basle Mission Trading Company and in the matter of the Commonwealth Trust, Limited?

Mr. AMERY: For the convenience of the House and with Mr. Speaker's permission, I propose to make a statement on this subject at the end of Questions.

At end of Questions:

Mr. LUMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now make his statetment?

Mr. AMERY: The Government nave for some time past given very careful consideration to the claim of the Basle Mission Trading Company, a Swiss concern, in respect of the sequestration of its properties and assets in the Gold Coast and in India during the War. These had been handed over without pay-merit to a British organisation, the Commonwealth Trust, the only compensation offered to the Swiss Company being part of the confiscated cash to the amount of £120,000, representing the original value of its shares, this action being based on the ground that the Basle Mission Trading Company was in the nature of a trust for philanthropic purposes and that the shareholders' case would be met if their actual capital was restored, and the rest of their assets devoted to similar purposes by another body. While not prepared to admit that their action in sequestrating the assets of the company was not justified by the circumstances of the time, the Government came to the conclusion that the compensation offered did not meet the equities of the case, and invited the representatives of the Basle Mission Trading Company to come over last year in order to see if an agreed settlement could not be arrived at.
I am glad to say that, as far as the Gold Coast is concerned, a settlement
has now been arrived at on the basis of the reinstatement of the company into their properties, the repayment of the original share capital with accrued interest, and the further payment, from Colonial funds, of a lump sum of £250,000, this last in respect of the remaining cash and other liquid assets sequestrated and estimated by the company at £376,000 without allowing anything for interest or goodwill.
In negotiating for a settlement the Government attached the greatest importance to the maintenance of the philanthropic character of the trading company, which was the basis of our action in handing it over, impressed with a definite trust, to the Commonwealth Trust. The representatives of the company made it clear that they were not in fact a trust, and that the limitation on profits which they had set themselves was one which under their constitution could be, and in fact had been from time to time, altered by the shareholders. Eventually, however, they gave an undertaking that they will not deal in liquor or firearms, and that
in the future, as in the past, they will adhere to their established practice of devoting a substantial portion of their distributable profits to missionary and other philanthropic purposes in all parts of the world, including the British Empire, through the medium of trustees, and that in the application of such proportion full regard will be paid to the needs of the Gold Coast Colony on a scale not less than has been followed in the past.
This formal undertaking, which is an integral part of the agreement, will, I think, remove any objections which may have been felt to the reinstatement of the Basle Mission Trading Company into the properties and position from which they had been temporarily displaced. Throughout the difficult negotiations the directors of the company stated their case most reasonably and showed a genuine desire to assist, and I can say that, as far as the Colonial Office and the Government of the Gold Coast are concerned, the renewal of their old association with the Colony will be regarded with good will.
In order to reinstate the Basle Mission Trading Society into their properties it was necessary that the Commonwealth Trust should vacate them. The latter company were, of course, in no way
responsible for the situation which had arisen, and if restitution of the properties to the Swiss company had resulted in the winding up and liquidation of the Commonwealth Trust, the Government would have felt bound to provide such amount as would have repaid, with arrears of interest, the capital of £50,000 odd contributed by the British shareholders, as well as pay such compensation as might be reasonable to deal with the considerable British staff, largely of ex-service men, who would have been displaced. Happily it has been found possible for the directors of the Commonwealth Trust to see their way, with the help of a payment of £55,000, to find alternative accommodation and continue their business, a decision which has since been confirmed by their shareholders. This solution is not only a reasonable one from the point of view of the Government, but it will prevent the 10 years' work of the Commonwealth Trust from being wasted, and will, I hope, enable it to earn such profits in future as will result in substantial benefactions to missionary and educational work in the Gold Coast.

Captain GARRO-JONES: With regard to the amount of profits to be diverted to charitable purposes, who is to decide what is a substantial proportion of profit; will it be possible to insert a more definite amount?

Mr. AMERY: That point was naturally considered in the negotiations. As the company are not a trust, and have never been bound to any fixed figure, it would be impossible to secure their agreement to such a fixed figure, but I have every confidence that the undertaking which they have given will be honoured both in the spirit and in the letter. If it were obviously violated, the Government of the Gold Coast would have the means of dealing with the matter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Treasury have to find any money in connection with this settlement?

Mr. AMERY: No.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the many questions which have been asked in regard to the Trust in recent times, and the difficulty there has been to ascertain what money was passed over for charit-
able funds, can the right hon. Gentleman say why no definite percentage is fixed at this time for this particular company to pay over to charitable funds?

Mr. AMERY: I thought that made the position clear. The position is this, that we sequestered the property of a Swiss trading company which was under no trustee obligation to give its surpluses to philanthropic purposes. It has, however, as a matter of fact, consistently given its profits above a certain percentage, which I admit has varied from time to time, to those purposes, and, on being reinstated, it has definitely undertaken to do the same in future. Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Trust is impressed with a definite trust, and is enabled to go on, and will pay all excess over 5 per cent. profit to missionary and other educational and philanthropic purposes in the Gold Coast.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will it be possible to ask the Basle concern to pay all over 5 per cent. profit?

Mr. AMERY: That was one of the things which we raised in the negotiations, but they were not prepared to agree to any definite sum.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to a change of business?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. It was found after consultation with the Opposition that the days put down for Supply were not the most convenient, and so we made a change. The business for to-day will be Report and Third Reading of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill; adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of the Rabbits Bill; Committee stage of the Naval Prize (Transfer of Funds) Money Resolution.
Tuesday will be a Supply day: Scottish Estimates for Public Education, Board of Health, and the Board of Agriculture.
Wednesday: Second Reading of the Agricultural Credits Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Thursday: The Foreign Office Vote will be considered in Committee of Supply.
On Friday, the business for which day I did not announce last week, we take the Reading Second of the Dog Racing Bill.
If there is time on any day, other collected. Orders will be taken.

FRESH-WATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to provide for the better protection of fresh-water fish in Scotland, and for other purposes relating thereto," presented by Sir Robert Hamilton; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 122.]

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL,

"to extend the operation of the enactments relating to the protection of animals in respect of animals kept in captivity or confinement and released for the purpose of being hunted or coursed," presented by Sir Wilfrid Sugden; supported by Mr. Barr, Mr. Boothby, Mr. Fenby, Sir George Hume, Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone, Sir Frank Sanderson, Dr. Drummond Shiels, Mr. Smillie, Mr. Whiteley, and Mr. Thomas Williams; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (EQUAL FRANCHISE) BILL.

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Section 8 of principal Act.)

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, after the word "residence "to insert the words" or a business premises."
The purpose of this Amendment can be very simply explained. It is to abolish plural voting at a general election, except in regard to the university franchise. This is a Bill for the assimilation of the franchise, and therefore it would not be possible, under the title of the Bill, to deal with the university franchise. My Amendment, therefore is confined to the removal of the right, which exists under the present law, for a man to exercise two votes at a general election, one on a residential qualification and the other on a business qualification. The university vote, where such exists, will continue to be exercised if my Amendment is carried. Perhaps hon. Members will forgive me if I briefly mention what are the qualifications under the law as it now stands. A woman over 30 has a vote in respect of her husband's local government qualification. A man who has a residential qualification and also one or more business qualifications can vote twice, but not more than twice. He can vote in one constituency on his residential qualification, and he can vote in another constituency on his business qualification. In the case of women over 30 who have the vote by virtue of their husband's local government qualification, at a general election they can exercise one vote only, but they have a. choice of voting either where their husbands have the residential qualification or where they have the business qualification. In the name of assimilation or equality this Bill proposes to give two votes to the wife, just as the husband has had two votes hitherto. That will considerably increase the number of women voters.
Further, also, in the name of equality, the Bill proposes to give a business vote
to the husband where the wife has a business qualification in her own right. As I said just now, these two changes will add a very large number of new voters; though it is a very small number by comparison with the total number of the electorate, still it is by no means a negligible number. It is important for hon. Members to remember that though the number of business qualifications is small by comparison with the 25,000,000 electors, these business qualifications are concentrated very largely in a few constituencies, and therefore it is quite possible that in certain constituencies the plural vote may have a very determining effect upon the result of the poll. We are opposed to this dual vote, because we believe it is quite inconsistent with the general basis of this Bill. As I said just now, there will be between 25,000,000 and 26,000,000 voters when the new register is compiled, and, according to the figures which the Home Secretary gave on the Second Reading, there will be something approaching 500,000 plural voters.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): That is, including the women.

Mr. SNOWDEN: On the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, the number of plural voters will be about doubled. The general basis of this Bill is the residential qualification. In other words, in the vast majority of cases the qualification for the vote will be citizenship, coupled with the qualification that the citizen has resided in a particular locality for a certain number of months. We submit that the dual vote is quite inconsistent with the general principle of the Bill. Up to the Reform Act of 1884, when the franchise was extended, the basis had been, in fact, a property qualification. This dual voting is a perpetuation of the property qualification for the exercise of the franchise. Surely, now that we are broadening out the basis of the franchise, and including practically everybody over 21 years of age, the time has come when we ought to remove from the franchise qualification all that savours of the old property system. That is the reason I am moving this Amendment. I cannot imagine that there can be any logical defence for the perpetuation of the dual vote. If it is
going to be justified on the ground that the man has an interest established by having an office or practice or business premises, surely if he has business premises or offices in half-a-dozen constituencies it would only be logical that he should exercise a vote in half-a-dozen constituencies. As a matter of fact, that limitation of the property franchise cannot be defended upon any logical grounds.
Those who are unfortunately as old as I am, and can remember political agitations before the extension of the franchise, will be quite familiar with the old system of faggot voting when votes were manufactured in constituencies where the balance of parties was very close. It is quite possible for something of the same sort to happen if this property qualification is maintained in the present Bill. I submit that this kind of plural voting is inconsistent with the democratic basis of this Measure. We are not dealing with the question of university suffrage on this Amendment, and perhaps a time will come when a Measure will be submitted to the House which will deal with the remaining anomalies of our electoral system. For the time being we content ourselves by putting forward the Amendment which I. have submitted to the House, and which I have endeavoured, to the best of my ability, to make clear to hon. Members.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) has carried his memory back as far as I can carry mine, to the time of faggot voting. If any faggot voter had thought it worth while 50 years ago to acquire a faggot vote in respect of an electorate of 25,000,000, I think it would have been very remarkable. The right hon. Gentleman told us quite frankly that the number is very small in proportion to the total of 25,000,000 voters. At the present time there are about 220,000 or 240,000 men who possess the business premises qualification, and under this Bill that figure will be just doubled, and there will be between 400,000 and 450,000 who will have a second vote in respect of their own or their spouse's business premises. If we were starting a fresh Bill altogether, making new regulations for voting, then this Amendment might be reasonable,
but it is not in accordance with the scope of this Bill. The Bill has been introduced to carry out a promise made by the Prime Minister to equalise the franchise between men and women, and there was no suggestion that in equalising the franchise we should take advantage of that opportunity to remove from the men the privilege they now enjoy of voting for their business premises. I am not at all sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not right when he said that on the principle which has been laid down it would be right to give a man five or six votes for different business premises in different constituencies, and if the right hon. Gentleman will move an Amendment to that effect I think I should be ready to accept it. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman will not carry out his logic to that extent.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that a man may vote in two different constituencies for business premises and a woman may only vote once. If you are going to complete the system of making a woman's vote equal to a man's vote, you must give the woman a vote for business premises. It is very remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley has not said anything of the position taken up by the Labour party on this point some four years ago when they wanted to deal with women suffrage. At that time a Bill of a very similar nature to this Bill was brought in by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. W. M. Adamson), and, when that Bill was going through Committee, the Labour party did not take the trouble to move any Amendment to abolish this small relic of plural voting; and now, when a Conservative Government brings in a similar Bill, hon. Members opposite say "We will take advantage of this opportunity and knock the plural voting provision out of the Bill. "When one of the right hon. Gentleman's own colleagues brought in a similar Bill, no Member of the Labour party took the trouble to move the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley has now put forward. Therefore, not only did hon. Members opposite, by implication, consent to the existing method of plural voting and the right of a man to vote for his residence and his business premises, but, when an Amend-
ment was moved to give a woman the same rights as a man and enable the woman to vote for business premises, they did not demur. One would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. A. Henderson) would have said "If we allow the man to have this wicked plural vote for his premises we really cannot allow the same thing for the woman."

Mr. SNOWEIEN: I am very reluctant to stop the flow of the right hon. Gentleman's oratory, but as a matter of fact the Home Secretary is totally wrong. In the Bill of 1924 which was introduced by the Labour party it is true the Clause was similar, but there was a provision in Clause 1 by which plural voting was abolished.

Sir W. J OYNSONHICKS: That is not my information. I had the Bill before me on the last occasion, and I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman was going to dispute that fact. My information is quite contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has stated, but, if his statement is correct, of course that will remove something from my argument. If the right hon. Gentleman is right, and I have been wrongly informed, hon. Members know me well enough to believe that I should not wish to make a false paint. I have been informed that what I have stated was the case, and that the Labour Government promised that if the Bill passed through the Committee they would take it up.

Mr. SNOWDEN: What I have said is dealt with in Clause I of the Bill of 1924.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am referring to Clause 1, Sub-section (2) of the Bill as amended by Standing Committee A.

'Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes, but you want the Bill as it was introduced.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No; I never said that at all. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will see that I said that an Amendment was introduced in the Committee to make the franchise in respect of the business qualification the same for women as for men. That Amendment was accepted by the Labour Member in eharge of the Bill, and, when the Bill had
passed through the Committee with that Amendment in it, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley said that the Government would take charge of it and do what they could to place it on the Statute Book. I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman knows the position in which the Labour Government were. We were in office, but there was a combination against us of the two other parties, and, if I remember the circumstances aright, that Amendment was reluctantly accepted in order to save the Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That Amendment, so far from being reluctantly accepted, was moved by the Labour Member in charge of the Bill, and not only did it not propose to strike out the remnants of plural voting which men had, but it proposed to put in this very provision giving to women the same right to plural votes which men had. That Amendment was embodied in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman and myself have been opponents—I hope courteous opponents—for many years, and I am quite sure that he misunderstood me when I made my statement a few moments ago. I am glad to be able to clear up the point by stating quite definitely that this provision giving to women, as we are doing, the same right in regard to plural voting as men, was moved by a Labour Member and put into the Labour party's Bill, and the Labour Government promised to take up the Bill in that form.

Mr. MONTAGUE: We are not so simple as that!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is no use my right hon. Friend saying that they wanted to pass the Bill. I grant that, but my only point—and it is, I admit merely a debating point—is that they did not, when one of their Members was in charge of the Bill, raise the attack on this question which the right hon. Gentleman is raising to-day because it is a Conservative Government that is introducing the Bill.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman introduced this reference to the Labour party's Bill, and tried to make the point that we were in favour of this plural voting at the time when the Bill was introduced in 1924. In the Bill,
however, as it was introduced by the Labour party, plural voting was abolished. Every Member of the House who has had any experience of the conduct of Government Bills and private Members' Bills knows that very often those in charge of a Bill have to accept Amendments in order to save the Bill, and that was precisely the position in which we were.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not dispute the facts at all; I only say that the right hon. Gentleman's courage is a little greater when I am in office than it was when he was in office. If this thing were so wrong as it is now alleged to be, the Labour party would have at once said, "We will not touch it; we will not have anything to do with it; it is wrong in principle"; but, apparently, they thought that it was not so very bad after all, and it is not so very bad after all. At the outside, it will mean an addition of 400,000 votes in a total of 25,000,000. As I have said, I am quite unrepentant on the matter. I think that a man is entitled to a vote in respect of his business premises as well as in respect of his private residence, and that if, by this Measure, we are to make the voting rights of women equal in all respects to those of men, a woman is entitled to the same right to a vote in respect of business premises. In these circumstances, I certainly hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: With regard to the particular point which has just been under discussion, I only desire to say this: We on this side of the House care very much indeed that women should obtain the vote, and, in spite of the fact that we regard plural voting as injurious, we supported any proposal which would secure the passage of a Bill in the past, and we shall support the Third Reading of this Bill even if our Amendment on this question be lost. That does not mean that we regard this Amendment as unimportant, or that we do not desire to see it carried.
The Home Secretary defended the original text of his Bill on the ground that any attempt to get rid of plural voting would have been outside the scope of the Bill. When this Bill was in Committee, the Chairman of Committees ruled that it was an assimilating Bill,
and that we could bring the franchise of women up to that which men possess, or could carry down the franchise of men to that which women possess, but that we could not alter, either in excess or in defect, the franchise of both. I venture to suggest, however, that this Bill gives both to men and to women a right which they did not possess before. At the present moment, apart from this Bill, the franchise for men is plural only when they have a residential qualification themselves or a business qualification themselves—I am leaving out the university vote, as has been done by common consent in connection with this Amendment. Women at, a General Election do not have a plural vote at all. Therefore, at the present time, under the existing law, it is neither possible for a man to exercise a plural vote at a General Election on account of his wife having a business qualification, nor for a woman to exercise a plural vote at a General Election on account of her husband's business qualification. This new Bill, however, allows both a husband and a wife to exercise a plural vote, on account of their spouse's business qualification, which neither possesses at the present time. Therefore, I say that the Conservative Government, in bringing in this Bill in its present form, have given, both to the husband and to the wife, something which neither of them possesses at the present time, and that, so far from being in accord with the assimilating principle, they are going outside the scope of the argument to the Bill, and are increasing plural voting both for man and for wife; and on that ground I think that their case is indefensible.
4.0 p.m.
Had the Government merely given to women the precise franchise rights which men possess at the present time, I think their case would have been a better one. We should still have objected to the plural voting, but I think that our argument would have lost a great deal of its force. As, however, they have gone beyond that, I think their position is quite indefensible, and, further, I think it is ill-judged. It is quite possible that, had the existing rights in the case of men merely been extended to women, that position might have lasted for a considerable number of years, but the Government have, in addition, created a
purely fancy franchise—because it must be admitted that to give women the right to vote on account of their husbands' business qualification, and the other way round as well, is a purely fancy franchise; and, because they have done that, I think that this particular form of plural voting will have to be revised at an early date, and will be revised, probably, very much sooner than would have been the case had the Government been content with that which, in our view, would have been improper, but which could be argued to be a reasonable method of dealing with the situation. Further than that, I do not believe that women want this purely fancy franchise. Women have demanded from the first that they should have the vote on precisely the same terms as men. They demanded from the first that they should vote as human beings, that they should vote on behalf of qualifications they possess in their own right. This new plural vote, which is to give a great number of women a second vote, not on account of their own right, or on account of being human beings, but on account of their being the wives of their husbands, I believe to be, not only a fancy franchise, but one which women would be very much better without, just as men ought to be without the right to vote on behalf of their wives' qualification. Therefore, I think the Conservative Government in this Bill have gone outside its real scope, and shall certainly support the Amendment

Sir JOHN SIMON: I wish to support the Amendment moved from the Labour benches. The House of Commons, really, should take due note of the fact that, at a time when we are supposed to be completing the reform of our franchise law, we are putting upon the Statute Book a provision which, examined by itself, must be regarded as an absurdity. It is quite absurd to say that any citizen is to have a vote in a particular constituency because that citizen is married to somebody. That is what we are doing. We are saying that a number of citizens are to have a vote, not because of anything they themselves in the constituency possess, but because they are married to a husband or wife, as the case may be. As I have from the
beginning taken a very firm and persistent part in supporting women's suffrage, and served on Mr. Speaker Lowther's Committee, and there had something to do with putting forward the case for women's votes, may I point out that the ground upon which this provision was first put upon the Statute Book has now completely disappeared? You may search the Statute Book from beginning to end, but you will never find any provision by which a person has a. vote because that person is married to somebody, until the Representation of the People Act, 1918. It was put in then for this combination of reasons. First of all, the argument in favour of women's suffrage was too strong any longer to be resisted, and, therefore, women had to have votes.
The second reason was that there was still a large body of opinion in the House and country which was alarmed at the idea that more women should get on the register than men, and, therefore, you had to have some test, and the test taken was one which secured that more women than men should not be put on the list of voters. But if you simply had regard to some limiting test of that sort you might have had this result, that instead of mothers and wives having votes, you would have had a preponderance of unmarried women with the vote, and the House and the country most reasonably thought that if you are to give women the vote, it is at least desirable, and probably more important, that the married women should have the vote than that the unmarried women should.
All that is now completely out of date. I remember perfectly well that in 1918, on Mr. Speaker Lowther's Committee, the reason—and the only reason—that this provision was put in to include among those who should vote, women who were the wives of certain qualified voting husbands, was in order that a certain number of married women should have the vote without at the same time swamping the male electorate. We have gone further. We have recognised a very obvious proposition, that there is nothing alarming in the idea that women should be on the register in larger numbers than men because there are more women citizens than men. There is not the slightest possibility of women all voting
one way, or of all men voting one way, and the attempt to turn the suffrage movement into a movement known as Feminism has met with the fate it deserved. Women are on the electorate, not as women opposed to men, but because they are citizens, with the responsibilities and duties of citizens, and, that being so, they must come on the register just like other citizens. What is the sense of the House of Commons at this moment perpetuating the absurdity of saying that the qualification for certain people to vote in a certain constituency should be that that person should be married to somebody else? I do not believe you can find in the franchise history of the world such a, proposal. It was introduced in our own country purely as an expedient. All that has gone, and I do appeal to the good sense of the House at this stage not to continue to perpetuate that absurdity. The only thing to do is to knock out once and for all this grotesque qualification, once you get to the point where women have the right to vote as citizens, without circumscribing their proper rights and opportunities.
I would invite the House of Commons, not in any party spirit, but in the desire to put our electoral law on a fair and proper basis, to say that we have now reached a point at which we are not afraid, because women as well as men have votes, that we want to have votes on the same basis, but let us get rid of this very ridiculous proposition by which a certain number of individuals in the country are put on the electoral roll because they happen to be married.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman want to do away with plural voting for men, too?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not urging that now. I myself think that plural voting is in itself objectionable, but, whether objectionable or not, the idea that we should embarrass our electoral roll, which ought to be simple, by the test of whether in a constituency someone who lives somewhere else is carrying on a business and is married, and that that should give the wife the right to another vote, ought really not to be perpetuated.

Mr. DIXEY: I should like to put to the House a point that strikes me about the Amendment. I believe that equal
franchise should be given to men and women, but it amused me very much to hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about inequality. To my mind, there is nothing in the world that is pure equality. The right hon. Gentleman, even in this House, has certain privileges not given to ordinary Members. He has the right to be heard whenever he desires. That inequality applies all through life. I am one of those who think it was quite right that plural voting, when it became a drawback to the electorate, should be limited. But I cannot see any inequality in the present system, where you allow a certain number of people, who have tremendous business interests in the country, to have a certain advantage over the ordinary franchise.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) gets a right to speak in this House because he is married to Mrs. Snowden?

Mr. DIXEY: The point I wish to make is that the right hon. Gentleman, through his great position in the Labour party, and owing to the fact that he is a Privy Councillor, has a right to be called upon to speak when other Members on both sides have to wait continually for hours. I am not objecting to that, personally, at all. I am merely pointing out that there is no such thing in this world as absolute equality. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well you cannot secure for any class of people in this country pure equality. It is an impossibility. Trade and industry, to my mind, have an added right to representation in this House. As long as that added right is not too much out of proportion to the interests of the community; as long as the business interests of this country do not predominate in this House, it is a proper right. But to take away the right of trade and industry to an added representation in this House is taking away something from the Constitution of this country to which I, for one, would not be prepared to agree. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will stick to the principle in this Bill, because, although I admit logically there is something to be said for the right hon. Gentleman's argument with reference to the women's qualification, nevertheless, I am confident that if you once
accept this Amendment you will be suborning what we have always looked upon in this House as a proper protection of trade and industry.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey) into his theoretical argument as to when equality is not equality, or the entitlement of women under this Bill to the same franchise as the men hare to-day. I was rather interested in the statement of the Home Secretary, and I can congratulate him that he is a little better primed to-day than his Under-Secretary was in the Committee stage of this Bill, because he mentioned that the Franchise Bill of 1924 was a Government Measure, and was actually sponsored by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson). Evidently the Home Secretary has been a little better informed this afternoon, and he had to come to the conclusion that it was a private Member's Bill, which was introduced in 1924—a tremendous distinction from the Government Measure which is being introduced to-day. During the Committee stage, when I was responsible entirely for the 1924 Measure, we submitted to a very logical argument.
A certain pressure was put upon us at that time, and, if the Home Secretary had been logical to-day, when he was using his argument that we were quite prepared to accept the Amendments that were put to us at that time, we should be equally as logical if we tried to argue that, because an official Amendment at that time was introduced to make the age of both men and women 25, the benches opposite were responsible for that recommendation at that time. I would hardly descend to that type of argument to prove that hon. Members opposite were in favour of an equal franchise upon the same terms. Evidently the Conservative party have developed tremendously since 1924, and, if the right hon. Gentleman will consult with the Minister of Education, who was in charge of the Opposition upon the Franchise Bill, he will begin to understand that in 1924 we had to consult with the Opposition and, without putting it to the vote, we came to the conclusion
that we should be defeated in resisting the Amendment, and we accepted it. We are equally entitled to appeal to the Home Secretary that we should be allowed a free vote on the question of an equal franchise, without extending it to the equal business voting qualification either of the wife or of the husband. We stood then, and we stand definitely to-day, for the equalisation of the franchise, without fancy franchises or plural voting and the giving of the vote upon the human basis to men and women equally with one qualification.

Viscountess ASTOR: It is always interesting to hear Members on all sides of the House declare that they have always believed in equality between men and women. No party, as a party, has ever been really sound on this subject of equality, and I do not think they are now. There are a great many Members of all parties who, although they give lip service to it, really in their hearts do not believe in it. What I think was so interesting was when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said, with truth, that the reason you got this absurdity of a woman voting because her husband had property was that it was based on the fear of what women were going to do, and any law based on fear instead of justice must be bad. It is a ridiculous reason that a woman should vote because her husband has property, but. that is not what hon. Members opposite are thinking of so much. They are thinking of plural voting. There is a good deal to be said for and a good deal against that. As long as a woman has a vote because her husband has a business, I do not object to a man having a vote because his wife has property, but it is all wrong in either case. There is no reason in it. That is man-made law. I shall not vote for the Amendment, because it is really getting at plural voting, which is not the question before us. The question before us is equality, and I feel that, as long as men have this absurd vote, women should have it too.
I wished to point out that a man-made law based on fear is one of the most ridiculous things possible to a logically-minded woman. The hon. Member who has just spoken says that the Conservative party is improving. Parties that do not go forward go out. I am
glad to say that all panties are improving as far as the treatment of women is concerned, but there have only been a few men in any party who have really been sound about it. We have had just as sound men in our party as in any other. We also have the most unsound men in our party, and the worst of them is that they make so much noise. They always give it away. The men in the other parties are wise enough to keep quiet, but our unsound men are always making a noise, and, generally, when it is too late.

Mr. R. MORRISON: The House always listens with pleasure to the Noble Lady on a topic like this, and to-day our pleasure is the greater because she comes to the House fresh from her great golfing triumph, in which she demonstrated not only the equality of women but the inferiority of man. I gathered from her remarks that she was not quite sure how she stood on the question of plural voting. There was something to be said for it. and something against it, and she left it at that. She is not sure whether it ought to be abolished, but in any case this is not the afternoon to do it. That, I gather, is her position. On the other hand the hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey), who so often charms the House with his wisdom, was rather out of his element when he was dealing with the question of equality, because he argued that the vote should depend largely upon the business and the responsibility a person has. If you are going to start off on that line I do not know where you are going to finish. If a man is to have two votes because he has a small business employing one other man, what about a man with 10,000 employés? If it is going to be based on the amount of responsibility the person has, there are hon. Members opposite who should have at least 250 votes.
I do not wish to appeal further to the Home Secretary for a free vote, because I rather gather he has made up his mind, but I should like to put this point to him. He has been very courteous in providing statistical information with regard to the operation of the Bill. Perhaps he could give us some further information. He agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) that this was a matter of small importance and that out of 25,000,000
voters, there would be approximately 450,000 concerned. Has he any information as to the constituencies that will be most affected and what will be the total number in them? In many constituencies there will be only a dozen or two, but at the other end there will be some where the numbers may run into thousands. It would be interesting to know what would be the largest number of voters affected by this in any constituency.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not exact figures on the point, but the hon. Member may assume that the constituencies most affected will be the central business constituencies in the large towns.

Mr. MORRISON: There is only one other point. Whether the Amendment is passed or not, we shall vote solidly in favour of the Bill, but I hope when the right hon. Gentleman, because of the tenacity with which he clings to Conservative principles, changes his place from the Front Bench over to this side, or below the Gangway, he will not say the Labour party cast a vote in favour of plural voting, because we have always been perfectly consistent, we have opposed it continuously, and while the right hon. Gentleman may continue to make, on the platform and in the House, what he has admitted to be merely a debating point, the fact remains that the Labour party has always been in favour of the abolition of plural voting and, whether we are successful to-day or not, we shall continue, and, I hope, take steps to abolish it at the first opportunity we get.

Sir FRANK MEYER: I do not think anyone will dispute the fact that the Labour party has always been against plural voting, are against it now and will always be against it. I only rise in order, if possible, to obtain some information as to the position of the Liberal party. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) made it clear that he was going to vote in favour of the Amendment, and I should think it probable that his example will be followed by his colleagues who are present. But in the earlier part of the Debate we had a discussion which seemed to indicate to those who were
not Members of the previous House of Commons that, during the 1924 Parliament, the Labour party, in a Private Member's Bill, were not able to eliminate plural voting on account of their inability to get a majority. It is common knowledge that in that Parliament the Labour and Liberal parties were in the majority and, as long as they agreed, were able to have their way. I should therefore like to know how it was—it is an allegation which has been made both by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. W. M. Adamson)—they were not able at that time, when they had their Bill before the Committee, to get their own way and eliminate plural voting. It is apparent that in that Parliament the Liberal party were in favour of plural voting. In view of the exchange of arguments which have taken place on this matter, and the fact that the Home Secretary has been accused of making a debating point of it, we should like to know whether the Liberal party have changed their views, or what was the reason in the discussions on their Bill the Labour party could not rely upon their support and once and for all do away with plural voting.

Mr. MORRIS: Hon. Members opposite have not quite made up their minds upon what ground they are going to oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden). The hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Mr. Dixey) opposes it because he does not believe in equality. The Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) is opposed to the Amendment because she believes the Clause as it stands gives equality between the sexes, but she has raised another issue. She is confused as to what equality means. The Clause as it stands does not mean merely equality between men and women. It brings in an inequality between men and women. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) made the real and material point with regard to this Clause. If you are going to give a vote to a woman because she is married to somebody, you are putting her in a preferential position not only as regards men but as regards other women.
You are bringing in an inequality, not as between sex and sex, but as between the sex itself. Why should one class of women—

Mr. DIXEY: Why should men?

Mr. MORRIS: After that question, I hope to see the hon. Member for Penrith and Cockermouth go into the Division lobby in support of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. DIXEY: I justify the distinction, but the right hon. Gentleman does not. There is a distinction at the present time between classes of men. Men have a separate vote for business premises, and, if it is given to men, why should it not also be given to women?

Mr. MORRIS: I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman could put an Amendment on the Paper extending the vote for business premises. Why should the vote in respect of business premises be limited to one vote!

Mr. DIXEY: Why do you not put it down on the Paper?

Mr. MORRIS: Because we are opposed to plural voting in any shape or form. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who are you?"] If I were criticising the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley, I should merely criticise it on this ground, that it still omits one form of plural voter. It still leaves open plural voting so far as the University vote is concerned. [ Interruption.] I am informed that we cannot deal with that in this Bill. The point still remains that we are attempting to give equality to the sexes. This Amendment is the very Amendment that gives that equality, and the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton ought to be found in the Lobby supporting it. It gives equality between the sexes and equal rights to men and women to vote on the same register. It is this Amendment, and this Amendment only, that gives that equality.

Sir JOHN POWER: I think the House is very pleased to have had some information elicited as to the views of the Liberal party. It is news to me that the Liberal party are in favour of disfranchising the whole of the business classes of this country in respect of business pre-
mises, I do not think that that is a principle which is accepted on this side of the House. Personally, I am of opinion that the people who run the businesses of this country and who provide such a large measure of the revenue to pay the expenses of the country ought to have some special voice in its affairs. The limitation of two votes, one in respect of the individual and the, other in respect of business premises can be justified on many grounds. I will go further and say that if there is going to be equality between the sexes, I cannot see any reason for not extending the same privilege to the women voters. After all, we live in times that have very largely changed. Women now play a large part in the affairs of the country. They pull their weight in the business of the country. You can go into many busi-

ness establishments and find that they are almost entirely run by women. I am perfectly certain that many of the businesses in the country owe their success to the advice of women, and I may say that many Members in this House owe such success as they have attained in large measure to the advice of their wives. Therefore, if we are to observe equality between the sexes, I see no reason whatever why a woman should not be allowed to have a vote in respect of her husband's business, for the success of which, it is very possible, she is very largely responsible.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 78; Noes, 216.

Division No. 111.]
AYES.
[4.38 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Harney, E. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, w. M. (Statf., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barr, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (Watt Ham, Silvertown)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Keli worthy, Lt.-Com, Hon- Joseph M.
Strauss, E. A.


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H, (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Tomlinson, R. P.


Dafton, Hugh
Mackinder. W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Harry
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnlco, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edge, Sir William
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gillett, George M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Owen, Major G.
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Pethick-Lawrence, F, W.
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Mr. A Barnes and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Betterton, Henry B.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Albery, Irving James
Bourne, Captain Robert Crott
Clayton, G. C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Brass, Captain W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon, William Clive
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Applin, Colonel R. v. K.
Briscoe, Richard George
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Brittaln, Sir Harry
Cooper, A. Duff


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cope, Major William


Astor, Viscountess
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Suchan, John
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bullock, Captain M.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Balniel, Lord
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank.Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Curzon, Captain viscount


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Bann, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Bennett, A. J.
Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Dixey, A. C.


Berry, Sir George
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Drewe, C.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Salmon, Major [...].


Edmondson, Major A. J.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Ellis, R. G.
Lamb, J. O.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Erskine, Lord {Somerset, Weston-s.-M.}
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandon, Lord


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fall, Sir Bertram G
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Savery, S. S.


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Loder, J. de V
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Long, Major Eric
Sinclair. Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Fermoy, Lord
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Skelton, A. N.


Fielden, E. B.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lumley, L. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macintyre, Ian
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Gates, Percy
Macmillan, Captain H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.
Storry-Deans, R.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Grace, John
Malone, Major P. B.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sueter, Hear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Grant, Sir J. A.
Margesson, Captain D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Meller, R. J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Grotrian, H. Brent
Meyer, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Hacking, Douglas H
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col- K. P.


Hall, Lieut-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hamilton, Sir George
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hanbury, C.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Oakley, T.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wells, S. R.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Penny, Frederick George
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Pilcher, G.
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Power, sir John Cecil
Wolmer, Viscount


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Raine, Sir Walter
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Hopkins. J. W. W.
Ramsden, E.
Wood, E. (Chast'r, Staiyb'ge & Hyde)


Hurst, Gerald B
Remnant, Sir James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mine, Sir Edward M.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Iveagh, Countess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ropner, Major L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jephcott. A. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major the


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Marquess of Titchfield.

CLAUSE 5.—(Maximum Scale of Election Expenses.)

Mr. T. KENNEDY: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, at the end, to insert the words:
and as if for the word fivepenee 'there were substituted the words four and a half pence.'

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this Amendment is not out of order, under the Ruling that was given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker on the 17th April, on the Report Stage of the Petroleum (Amendment) Bill? Mr. Deputy-Speaker then ruled that under Standing Order No. 41 no Amendment in this shape could be moved on Report where the matter had been dealt with in Committee only under an Instruction, and that it could not be
dealt with in Committee unless there had been such an Instruction. On reference to the Ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker, It will be found that he said that the Committee having exercised its right under the Instruction in Committee, that right was exhausted, and the matter could not be raised again on Report. I should like to know whether this Amendment is not on all-fours with the Amendment to the Petroleum (Amendment) Bill which was ruled out of Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a point which has given me cause for some little consideration. The Ruling which was given by Mr. Deputy-Speaker on the occasion to which the right hon. Member refers was really my Ruling, and, therefore, the responsibility is mine, and not his. I
do not think the cases are quite parallel. In this case, when Clause 5 was in Committee of the whole House, it was debated on the authority of an Instruction, as there was some doubt whether the proposal in question was covered by the words in the title "consequential thereon." The new Clause then proposed was amended by omitting the reference to the fivepence maximum scale for a borough. The Committee, therefore, did not have a chance to consider the middle figure of fourpe ace-halfpenny, because the whole sentence which included the "fivepence" was struck out. It seems to me, therefore, to be straining Standing Order No. 41 too far to hold that the House is barred from considering the proposal in the present Amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY: I am glad to hear that Ruling, because, otherwise the House would have been prevented from giving its assent to an Amendment with which I think every Party in the House will readily agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is my opinion; I do not think there can be any disagreement on the other side of the House with respect to this point, that the bigger the constituency the more legitimate expenditure per head of the electorate diminishes. On another point, I think there will be general agreement, and that is that. while the scale fixed should be sufficient to enable candidates to incur, legitimately, an necessary expenditure for the promotion of their candidatures, the scale should not be so high as to permit of any sort of competition between rich candidates and poor candidates. There should be no financial bar to candidatures in the fighting of Parliamentary elections. When the Bill was in Committee the Home Secretary, fortunately, provided me with all that I need in order to ask for the acceptance of this Amendment. He told us that at. the last general election the average expenditure incurred by successful candidates in the London boroughs worked out at 4.23d. per head of the electorate; that in the English boroughs as a whole the average expenditure was 3.91d. per head, while in the Scottish Burghs the expenditure was even less. We were able to return our Members for this House in the Scottish Burghs on an average expenditure of 2½ per head.
Let us see how the position will work out under the enlarged electorates with which we shall be faced at the next General Election. Take an average constituency of 50,000 electors. Under the maximum scale of 5d. the expenditure permitted would be round about £1,050. With an increased electorate of 10,000 the 5d. scale of permitted expenditure would rise to £1,250. If the House accepts my Amendment there will be a permitted expenditure under the new law of £1,140 or £1,150. That means that on the 40. basis candidates in boroughs will be permitted to spend £100 more in their constituencies than they have spent up to now. Consider the items of necessary expenditure that will arise. I think I am right in saying that the single item of election expenditure that will be affected by the large electorate is that of printing.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Postage.

Mr. KENNEDY: Postage is a very small item. Printing is the main item. The printing of 5,000, 6,000 or even 10,000 additional election addresses is a very small matter. Practically it amounts to little more than the cost of the extra paper. Therefore, with the increased electorate candidates will be in the position to spend under the 4½. scale all that needs to be spent legitimately in a Parliamentary Election. Perhaps I might illustrate the case for the Amendment by citing my own position. In my constituency, if we pass this Amendment, I shall be permitted legally to incur expenditure, on the basis of 4½d. per elector, of something like £750. I hope that I shall fight my constituency at the next General Election, and if have the privilege of doing so I am perfectly certain that I shall fight it successfully on an expenditure of one-half that amount. What I can do in this connection every other Parliamentary candidate can do. Votes should not be bought in Parliamentary Elections. The present expenditure, in my opinion, is too high. The compromise which we suggest is a compromise proportionate to the reduction which has taken place already in Committee in the case of county constituencies.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to second the Amendment.
The result will be very curious if the House does not take the opportunity of reducing the figure of fivepence, which at present is the authorised maximum for a registered elector in the borough. The House has already decided so far as county constituencies are concerned that, in view of the increased number of voters which this Bill will create, the maximum expenditure per voter shall be reduced by one penny. Nobody challenges that. There will be a similar increase in the number of voters in the boroughs, and we shall be simply stultifying ourselves if we do not recognise that the same argument, within reasonable limits, ought to prevail in regard to the boroughs as in regard to the counties. There is a good deal to be said, in principle, for the view that you should not fix the amount of authorised election expenses simply by multiplying the number of pennies into the number of voters. It was not, I think, ever done in this country until the Statute of 1918.
It is, of course, manifest that if you have an addition of something like 9,000 new electors in a constituency, whether it be a county constituency or a borough constituency, you do not thereby proportionately increase the expenses, for all the principal items of expenses will remain the same as before. The item for printing is a very small matter; 9,000 additional Election addresses will not cost much more, and 9,000 halfpenny stamps amounts to something like £18. If matters remain as they now are and if in every borough constituency the maximum amount that may be spent is to be got at by multiplying the increased number of electors by fivepence, we shall get something like 9,000 times fivepence—an additional expenditure of something like £185. There is, no justification that I can see for allowing such an increase as that, and it would be very absurd if at the same time that we recognise that in view of the increasing number of voters it is reasonable to reduce the county scale per voter, we were to leave the boroughs figure unaltered. No reason can be suggested why a, reduction of the maximum scale allowed per voter in the constituencies is right, and yet a reduction in the maximum allowed per voter in the boroughs is wrong.
5.0 p.m.
Historically, this difference between the amount that it is proper to spend in the counties and the amount it is proper to spent in the boroughs has existed for a very long time; I think it has always existed. In Sir Henry James' Act of 1883, which for so many years governed these matters, the authorised expenditure in the average county—I have looked at the average size and it was about 11,000 voters—was £1,250, whereas the average expenditure in a borough was £650, so that the difference was nearly 50 per cent. The reason, no doubt, why the difference should have been so great in the old days was that 20, 30 or 40 years ago many county constituencies were vast in extent. William Wilberforce was Member for the whole of Yorkshire; he and three others were the four Members for the County of Yorkshire. Down to 1832 each county Member for Yorkshire represented the whole county, and when the county was divided into three Ridings there were two Members for each of the three Ridings till, I think, about 1859. As county constituencies become more numerous and less extensive, the expenditure that is proper in a county approximates more nearly to the expenditure that is proper in a borough. But when Mr. Speaker's Committee considered this, they came to the conclusion that the fair ratio between counties and boroughs was the ration of 7d. and 5d. We came to the conclusion that, if we left 7d. in the case of the counties for each registered voter, 5d. per registered voter in the boroughs would be fair. I have never heard from that day to this anyone complain that that was an unfair proportion. The question really comes to be this: If 7d. is reduced, as it has been reduced to 6d. in the counties, why should the 5d. not be reduced too? The principles of the rule of three would seem to suggest that, instead of 5d., the Amendment should substitute, I think, 4.285714, all repeating. But that would be too precisely mathematical, and I submit that 4½d. is a perfectly fair figure. We all recognise that, when we are fixing a maximum figure, we must allow for certain cases where, for one reason or another, expenditure may have to be rather more than in other cases. If 5d.
has stood as the figure in borough constituencies to the general satisfaction of those areas, then I do contend that the moment you add another 9,000 voters, with practically no material addition to the expenditure, it cannot be right any longer to take 5d. as the figure.
At an earlier stage, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was good enough to say that he would leave this matter to the discretion of the House. On that occasion, the proposal was 4d., and the change was defeated by a very small majority indeed, seven or eight. I hope that on this Report stage, which is the stage when the House of Commons dispassionately reviews the decisions of the Committee, it will be the view of the majority, and I hope of a very great majority, that this figure should be reduced from 5d. to 4½. That will, in fact, authorise more expenditure than is authorised to-day, which is quite right; but it will do something to prevent what every honest man in this House desires to see, namely, a discouragement to the unnecessary spending of money as a means of getting into the House of Commons.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: I hope the House will not accept the advice of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), but will resist this Amendment. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in stating that the House decided only the question of 4d. the other day, hardly puts the case quite justly, if I may say so. What the House decided was that it should leave the present figure for boroughs unaltered, and I hope the House will do so to-day. When the figure of 7d. was settled for counties and 5d. for boroughs, a distinction of 2d. was established between the two. In the course of the Debate on the Committee stage, the reasons why Mr. Speaker's Conference made that distinction was clearly given. But I see no reason why that distinction should perpetually he maintained between the two. The counties, as we know, are allowed additional officials and require certain additional expenditure. But improvements in the means of communication and other advantages have reduced the necessary expenditure in counties, and there has not been an equivalent reduction of the necessary expenditure in the boroughs.
In many ways, the expenditure in the boroughs has increased. On the previous occasion, when this subject was debated, I gave the reasons for that, and I shall be very reluctant to go over the whole of the ground that was then fully covered.

Mr. MACKINDER: Will you tell us how it has been reduced in the counties?

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The answer is that the 7d. was to provide for a greater expenditure on transport purposes than is now necessary. The transport facilities in rural areas have since been greatly improved. My point is that, just because there was a difference of 2d., there is no reason, if you reduce the one, why, by rule of three, you should reduce the other. If the counties are satisfied to have the maximum figure reduced, there is no reason why the boroughs should be required to go in for a similar reduction. The figure of 5d. is not excessive at the present time in view of the large electorate to whom the candidates have to appeal, if the candidate is to put his case adequately before them. If the House were considering a reform of the franchise throughout the various matters affecting election law, there might be some case for making a change; but I submit that this Bill does not deal with the whole of those questions that might be introduced into a Bill that had a wider scope, and there is no case, so far as I can see, for a reduction in the present incidence.
There is a further consideration. We are looking at this question from the point of view of successful candidates. Critics might urge that, if we were to pass this reduction, the present House of Commons would be consolidating its own position possibly at the expense of a candidate who is not already a Member of this House, and who may have to attack a constituency which is strongly held, for instance the constituency of the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment. He said that he hoped to be able to hold his seat at the next election at a lesser expenditure than the maximum. If the House were considering some possible advantage in favour of a candidate who has not sat before in this House, there might be something in the argument, or if, for instance, those who have become Privy Councillors were not required to defend their seats in the
same way as the candidate who has not had such long experience of serving the House and the country. But, as things are, I hope the House will resist this Amendment. On this occasion we have heard less of the argument that there should be a reduction to prevent men of lesser means getting into the House. But it is not money, it is time that counts in this case. There is an English proverb, "Time is money." Therefore, the difference between 5d. and 4½d. is not the main consideration. On this ground, and on others, I submit that the case for reduction is not proved. The House affirmed by its decision last time the matter came before it that the figure for the boroughs should remain unchanged, and I trust the House on this occasion will agree.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I hope very much indeed that the Government will do as they did last time and leave this to a free vote of the House. But I must say frankly, whatever their decision in that matter, may be, my support will go to the Amendment, because I should regard it as absolutely disastrous, from the mere party point of view, that a certain party should indentify themselves with the suggestion that it in any way depends for its success more upon the expenditure of money than either of the other two parties. I at any rate would never for one moment assent to that proposition. I believe the Conservative party is perfectly capable of winning on its merits and its principles, quite apart from any question of expenditure. I should exceedingly regret if we as a party were to appear—I do not think it can be more than an appearance—to identify ourselves with the arguments in favour of larger expenditure. I have fought probably more Parliamentary elections than most Members of this House, and my experience is that the present scale is ample for all honest purposes in an election, and that there is no reason whatever to add to the expenditure. On the contrary I should have been perfectly well satisfied if the figure had not been put in at 4½d., but at 4d., as was proposed in the last Debate. Unfortunately on that occasion I was prevented by illness from being present and it is for that reason that I must inflict two or three remarks on the House this afternoon.
The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) referred to certain large expenditure which had been incurred at previous elections in the county to which he and I both electorally belong; but I remember a much stronger case than he quoted. Unless my memory fails me, in the City of York £100,000 was spent by two candidates in a single election. That was not at the last election; it goes a great deal further back than my personal memory would serve. I have never fought in any but a borough election; I have no experience of county elections, but I can see no reason whatever for the distinction which, if this Amendment be not accepted, will be drawn between county and borough expenditure. On that point, I agree wholeheartedly with what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley. The Members of this House would absolutely stultify themselves if they refused to accept the proportionate reduction in the expenditure for the. boroughs. I think, if there be any argument at all in the matter, probably we ought to accept for the boroughs a more than proportionate reduction for reasons which at any rate, are obvious to a good many people. I have no desire to detain the House. The argument has been admirably put from the other side of the House, and I only desire as a single Member of the Conservative party to say how strongly I would appeal to the Government to allow a free vote in this matter and that I appeal to my fellow Members of the Conservative party not to allow it to go forth that they are in favour of greater expenditure at elections.

Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I am rather diffident in intervening in a Debate like this, when those who have spoken before me have been Members of considerable experience. On the other hand I feel that I must oppose the Amendment and give my reasons for so doing. I say definitely that those reasons have nothing to do with my own constituency, because I can manage very well with less than 25 per cent. below the maximum allowance. My reasons for opposing the Amendment are briefly these: We have heard a great deal in this House about the average expenditure, and if the average expenditure were pretty general, it might be reasonable to reduce the
maximum. It is generally overlooked, however, that when we are fixing a maximum we have to fix it in relation to particular constituencies, where a position exists very different from that of the average constituency. I know of one such constituency and there are very many others. I speak particularly of boroughs. One or two I know perfectly well, and the conditions there are very different from those which have been suggested by previous speakers. One such constituency is in my mind at the moment. It is in a business part of a city and is gradually losing its residential voters and increasing its out-voters. As a matter of fact this particular constituency has fewer voters on the register to-day than it had at the last general election. Of course the new electors who will come in by the passage of this Bill will considerably increase the total electorate, but a large number of the new voters will be out-voters.
Although I have not the electioneering experience of many who are in this House, I can say that in organising the circulation of information on political questions at election time, there is a very considerable expense, and with the proposed addition to the electorate that extra expense will be large. We talk about the increase in the electorate that will be brought about by the Bill. It is an increase in a particular class of the electorate, and a class that in many cases has not had experience of elections, and has not perhaps taken political subjects to heart as seriously as it must now do, and as I am sure it will do, because I am confident that the Bill will be for the good of the country. At the same time it must be remembered that, when you are dealing with a new class of the electorate, you are dealing with political questions in a special way; therefore this moment seems most inappropriate for dealing with the maximum expenditure. The question might very well be dealt with when experience has shown us how things have gone, or if re-distribution were a subject for consideration.
Particularly important is it for us to bear in mind the exceptional cases which are involved. There are many cases like that I have mentioned. I have a great deal of sympathy with those who talk about the wisdom of reducing expenditure. Candidates should be perfectly
ready to take the matter of expenditure in their own hands and to deal with their own chairmen at election times. I am satisfied that every one of us in a position, or ought to be in a position, to keep expenditure down by the most reasonable methods possible. I know I am speaking for quite a number of boroughs which feel the danger of being tied at a moment like this, having regard to their particular circumstances. I have every sympathy with proposals for the reduction of the cost of elections. I thoroughly support what my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) said as to the confidence that exists in every one of us on the Conservative side, certainly in myself, that it is wholly unnecessary to incur outrageous expenditure in order to forward the cause of Conservatism throughout the country. Conservatism speaks for itself and commends itself to the nation as a whole. There is no question about that side of the matter. I speak with sincere conviction when I say that it would be a mistake at this particular moment to accept the Amendment.

Mr. GROVES: I understood the hon. Member who has just spoken to say that he was not connected with a borough.

Mr. ALLEN: Yes, I am.

Mr. GROVES: Then I misunderstood the hon. Member. I, too, am a borough Member, and I would like to speak of my experience in my part of the country. The Amendment is justified by the experience I have gathered during many years. If my memory serves me right, the Home Secretary gave us some figures which proved that the amount allowed to be spent on an election has never actually been spent in recent years.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The average figures.

Mr. GROVES: The average figures are what we generally use. I am speaking from my party point of view when I refer to the amount of money that we spend. This is not, however, a party question. We are a party representing a vast number of people in this country. Surely people are sufficiently educated politically at election times to be able to go to the ballot box and register their opinions candidly. In my constituency in the past election we were allowed to spend up to £800. In the three elections that I have
fought I have never spent £300. My opponents have usually spent the maximum amount, because it is customary for people who are allowed to spend a. certain amount to fear that, if they take things as steadily and confidently as I do, and if they do not "go the whole hog," they are not doing all that they ought to do. It is said sometimes that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In this connection I suggest that the proof of the pudding is sometimes in the amount left on the plate. It is hardly necessary to refer to the manner in which candidates provide, through political organisations, for the preliminary political education of the public. Hon. Members opposite would not say that they are doing what they are not entitled to do by using wireless. I understand that they are about to use wireless installations for political purposes. They would not say that they are not using to the full the opportunities for open street-corner meeting propaganda. In the East End of London the street-corner work of the Conservative party, done by the London Economic Club and under various other disguises, is propaganda that almost equals the voluntary work that we in the Labour and Socialist movement have done for 20 or 25 years.
Do hon. Members not see that they are doing something that is contributing to the political education of the citizens from their point of view? If so, that is an argument in favour of reducing the amount which it is allowable to spend at elections, as is suggested in the Amendment. In the East End of London generally it will be found that the Labour candidate goes to the poll after an expenditure of anything between £200 and £300. I do not want to weary the House with personal experiences of my own, except to show how little we ought to worry about this particular point. This Parliament and this country have boasted that on account of the general belief in democratic principles nothing would be done to establish a bar of gold that would preclude poor people from entering the doors of this House. I began one of the elections without a penny. I started an open-air meeting and collected a sovereign, which, so to speak, grew like a snowball, and I learned that when the public has a belief in its candidate it
will support him. The last speaker mentioned the new class of electors that this Bill will add to the register. Our experience is that the new class of electors, the younger women, are as interested in general political matters as were their mothers and fathers. It is not right to assume that the new voter needs a greater degree of political education, or is wanting in political acumen.
The younger voters have received political training in the discussions which go on in their own homes. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends have had the same experience in this respect as I have had. My father was not a Socialist. In his days Socialism was a new thing and was in its infancy, and in my home I was taught something of the work of a former Prime Minister, William Ewart Gladstone. Discussions took place in my home, and do hon. Members imagine that political discussions do not take place in the homes of the people to-day? Do they not think that those discussions lead to the younger people forming views about political questions. The younger generation of girls to-day are not as keenly concerned with the cinemas as the word "flapper" might induce people to believe. Through their trade union branches, through the guilds connected with the great co-operative movement, these young girls take an interest in social science and politics. The argument that it is necessary to spend a great deal of extra money in teaching the new class of voters falls to the ground. Our experience is that this expenditure is not necessary.
The hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan) referred to the case in which "a dead set" may be made against a Member of Parliament who has been particularly energetic and who may have engendered opposition as some of us have done. In my own case, I hope I have not done so by any discourtesy or venom, but owing to my attention to the affairs of the West Ham Union and my temperance principles, there appears to be a definite set against me. Therefore, it will be an advantage to my prospective opponent to have the power to use additional money in order to unseat me—and, I may add, he will not succeed without that advantage. If there is a dead-set against a Member of Parliament, extra money may
be necessary in order to shift that Member of Parliament, but I doubt whether that is a sufficiently strong argument to warrant us imposing on prospective candidates a limit of expenditure which, in the great fracas to come, will be such as individual candidates can ill-afford. Speaking for myself, I am sure we could not find the additional amount, and I think the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) put the case quite truly and very humanly when he said that the present expenditure was ample for all honest purposes. We have had experiences in our locality in the past 20 years where the money that was allowed by Statute was not used for honest purposes and, in my opinion, opportunities for the utilisation of sums above those which are sufficient for running an honest election, attract political candidates towards the use of money in ways which this Parliament, in honour and in honesty, would not condone.
I ask that we should have a free expression of the opinion of Members of this House. This is not a party question. Party fortunes do not rest upon this Amendment. Many of us who represent boroughs feel that the experience of the past proves it is not for the general political education of the people that this additional money would be made available. We feel that the political education of the people can be carried on by the instruments that we have at our disposal, by great propaganda meetings and the utilisation of broadcasting. If the Election comes, as it should Dome next year in the summer-time, that is an additional argument for reduced expenditure. We shall then have our open-air meetings, and if the Conservative party honestly desire to get the opinion of the people, they will not as in past years have the Election at a time when the weather makes it impossible for aged or sick people to register their votes. Let us have the Election in the summer and in weather such as we are going through now. [An HON. MEMBER: "The spring!"] Yes, if you have it in the spring, when a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of love, perhaps the young man and the young woman will be able to go together to the poll. But the hon. Member who interrupts is not treating the question seriously. It is a serious question. A good deal of the money which is spent in
transport would be saved, and a good deal of the anxiety which seems to be felt about getting vehicles to "round up" voters who have moved into other districts would be avoided, if the timetable worked out as it ought to, and if we had the Election a year from to-day when the weather is fine. Then candidates should be able to do it easily on the figure of 4½d. I beg the Home Secretary to leave the question to a free Vote of the House, and I beg hon. Members opposite to carry out what they have preached for years, namely, that we should reduce the degree of financial obligation imposed on prospective Members of Parliament and open the doors of this assembly to poor people. The House will be registering a democratic opinion if we vote for the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir G. DALRYMPLEWHITE: I do not propose to go over the ground that was covered during the Committee stage. I rise largely because of the remarks of the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves). He and others seem to cling to the idea that we are deliberating here to-day solely for ourselves and for this Parliament, without any reference at all to future candidates and perhaps to far distant Parliaments. The hon. Member suggests we are likely to have the next Election in the summer and argues that we need not spend up to the maximum amount in that case. I quite agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan-Morgan), in asking what right have we to impose these conditions on future candidates. We ought not to think only of ourselves in this matter. As my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, there are candidates, and candidates. The sitting Member for a constituency has generally, though not always, some advantage over the new candidate. If a new candidate is up against a sitting Member, the new candidate will possibly have to spend more money in literature and in making himself known by having his photograph or other presentments of himself published upon the walls. In other respects, human nature being what it is, there are great differences as between one candidate and another. It is all very well, for instance, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J.
Simon) to say that expenditure ought to be reduced. He, with his matchless eloquence and his brilliant advocacy, can no doubt go down to his constituency, make two speeches and sweep the electors round with him, but there are others not so gifted. We may have to send round more literature. It may be composed in our central offices or by ourselves—at any rate, we have to spend more upon it.
It is well to remember, as has been pointed out, that in the Committee stage we decided definitely in favour of the figure of 5d. It was not merely a question of turning down 4d.; and on the Report stage, I submit, we ought not to vary that decision. Apparently, the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) is a whole-hogger in favour of reduction. He thinks that a figure even lower than 4d. would suit him, and he says that the present figure is sufficient for all honest purposes. We do not ask for more than the present maximum. We only ask that it should remain. I hope that after the next Election my hon. Friend will again be here as Member for York and that he will not have a pitiful tale to tell about the difficulties of covering out-door meetings and factory meetings and other forms of propaganda, in which the Labour party have several advantages in putting forward their views. I only hope he may not be in the position of saying that he was not able to catch up with the tales put about by the other side, and that he was not able to put his case before the electors. I ask the House to reaffirm here to-day what we affirmed in Committee and to retain the present maximum, which nobody is obliged to spend if he does not wish to do so.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken used two arguments. The first—if it was an argument—as far as I could gather, was that he proposed to rely not upon advocacy, but upon the dissemination of his photograph in the constituency.

Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: No, I said that in the case of new candidates that would be necessary.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman's other argument, which he now tells us was his sole argu-
ment, dealt with the new candidates, and it was an argument also advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham (Colonel Vaughan Morgan). As far as I could follow it, the argument was, "Here are we, trying to prevent prospective candidates having a fair chance by forbidding them to spend enough at Election time." Surely that argument misrepresents the situation. I think the chances of the candidates who are at present seeking to defeat us, lie in holding meetings in the constituencies while we are sitting here. It is not by spending more money at the Election that they are going to get a better chance. It is by what they do while Parliament is sitting. Any decision which we take to-day most certainly has nothing to do with their opportunities during the prosecution of their campaign as prospective candidates. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derby (Mr. Sandeman Allen) used two arguments. We have only had three speeches against the Amendment, and I think in the three there have only been three arguments. He used an argument about out-voters, and I think he led the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) into a trap. As far as I could follow the hon. Member for West Derby he said there were some constituencies where people who had gone to live further afield remained on the register on business qualifications. He said it was more difficult to reach them. Does the hon. Member propose to devote part of the money available for his election expenses, to paying for transport to bring in those out-voters? If so, I hope those who are opposing him will take note of what he has said this afternoon, and will watch carefully his proceedings during the Election.
If, on the other hand, he does not mean that, I fail to see what he does mean, because I cannot see why dealing with these out-voters, who are available by the three-halfpenny post, is not quite as easy as dealing with the rest of them. I do not think there is very much in that argument. Then the hon. Member says there is the question of personation, that it is still necessary to employ personation agents, and there he joins the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham, who, so far as the bulk of his argument was concerned, gave us the reply with which we are so familiar when we address ques-
tions to Ministers. He said in effect that he referred us to the answer which he gave on a previous occasion, meaning during the Committee stage. I have refreshed my memory as to what the hon. and gallant Member said on that occasion, and I find that he said:
We have not the latitude which is allowed to candidates in the counties in connection with the appointment of officials.
That is an argument for a lower expenditure in the boroughs. He went on to say:
We are not allowed sub-agents"—
That is another argument for a lower expenditure in the boroughs—
and in many ways our difficulties have been increased where the difficulties of the county candidates may have been reduced.

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: The hon. Member should deal with my argument as a whole.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I hope in justice to the hon. and gallant Member to deal with his argument as a whole. He went on to say
In busy and densely populated industrial areas, great difficulty is experienced in obtaining suitable committee rooms, and the expense is increased accordingly. There is also the difficulty of obtaining halls in which to hold meetings. That also leads to additional expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1928; col. 684, Vol. 216.]
May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there is nothing whatever in that argument unless the proposals in this Bill are going to lead to the necessity for more committee rooms and more meetings? Our case is that under the new arrangements there will not be any need to hold more meetings or to have additional committee rooms. I have not the same knowledge of the doings of the new voters as has the hon. Member for Stratford, but I believe that they do not live in a class apart, that they do not need to have special committee rooms to themselves, and that it will not be necessary to have additional Meetings for them. All that they have to do is to come to the meetings already held, and I would ask hon. Members in all parts of the House who have been through the experience of one, two, or more elections, "Is it humanly possible for candidates at Parliamentary elections to hold more meetings than they do at present?" I sincerely hope there is no suggestion that
we should hold more meetings than we do. It seems to me that there has been no case put up by hon. Members opposite against the Amendment.
The hon. and gallant Member for Southport and the hon. and gallant Member for East Fulham both used the expression that they are not seeking to increase the maximum, but, as a matter of fact, they are. I am not talking about the maximum per voter, but they are seeking to increase the maximum amount of expenditure which can be incurred at a Parliamentary election in a borough, and I think that before we consent to that, we are entitled to hear arguments to show that there is a necessity for increased expenditure. Let me remind the House, as they have already been reminded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), that when the Conference under Mr. Speaker Lowther sat and considered this matter, they came to the perfectly definite conclusion that the appropriate ratio as between county divisions and borough divisions was as seven to five. There has not been a word said in the course of these Debates which suggests for a moment that the propriety of that ratio has ever been or is now seriously challenged by anyone. My right hon. Friend has pointed out already that if we go back to the year 1883, the ratio was as nearly as possible two to one.
If you take the figure at which it was left by Mr. Speaker Lowther's Conference, the ratio was seven to five, or, in terms of percentage, five is 29 per cent. less than seven. Under the proposal in the Bill as it stands now, that percentage is reduced from 29 to 15; that is to say, 5d. is 15 per cent. less than 6d. If the Bill goes through as it stands now, the House will be making a substantial alteration in the ratio which was laid down by Mr. Speaker Lowther's Conference, and against which, as I suggest, there has never been a serious challenge issued by anybody. If, however, you accept the Amendment which has been moved, it is true that you will not maintain the percentage of 29. The actual percentage will be a shade under 25 per cent.; that is to say, that although there will be a slight difference, you will maintain the ratio approximately as it was settled by Mr. Speaker Lowther's Conference. That seems to me to be the main argument for this Amendment, the two-fold argu-
ment that no case has been put forward to show that the increasing of the electorate will make any considerable necessary increase in the expenditure at elections in boroughs, and that, as there has been no challenge in 10 years of the ratio set forth by Mr. Speaker Lowther's Conference, there is no case for this House to alter it now.
In conclusion, may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this point? A good deal was done by Sir Henry James, who has already been quoted, towards reducing the expenses of elections, and in the Debate on the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Bill of 1883 he said this, which I commend to Members on all sides of the House:
Apart from the fact that extravagant expenditure was so near akin to corruption, it was almost the very father of corruption, it appeared to him that even if it were not corrupt expenditure it was necessary to check it.
It is in the interests of not taking a-reactionary step, of not going back, but maintaining the salutary tendency for which Sir Henry James himself was responsible, that I ask the right hon. Gentleman certainly to leave this to an open vote, and I appeal to Members on all sides to vote for the Amendment.

Captain IAN FRASER: I do not desire or intend to repeat arguments which the House has heard ad nauseam, but I believe that 4½d. provides sufficient to meet the extra costs of the new elections. I think many hon. Members on all sides agree with that, and I merely rise to ask the Government to take off the Whips.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) has made a speech worthy of commendation in this House. I wish we all made as short speeches. I think the House is now prepared to come to a decision on this Amendment. We are considering a very important question, namely, whether the expenses at the next election should be, on the average, £100, one side or the other, more than they are to-day. It is a question that really affects this side of the House and the other side below the Gangway more than it does the other side above the Gangway, because every speaker above the Gangway opposite has assured us that they do not want the
money, that they are not going to spend it; and, therefore, it does not much matter to them what we decide. The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) explained that he won by spending under £300, and, therefore, he was quite happy.

Mr. GROVES: But we do not desire to be unnecessarily handicapped.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I understand he won against a great handicap and spent under £300 in doing so. I want to say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Marriott), who takes a very strong view and rather puts his argument against this Clause on the ground that parties should win on their merits and not on the amount of money expended. I am very sorry to hear that my hon. Friend has any doubt about it, but I have always thought that the Conservative party did win on their merits. I do not want this House, any more than does any other hon. Member, confined to rich men. I want to see the Members elected on merits and on principles, and that, I think, is agreed on all hands. What I am asked to do today is to leave the Whips off, for the second occasion in the course of the Debates on this Bill, in order that the maximum should not be raised. It is not a question of the minimum. It has been pointed out that it is not a minimum, but a maximum figure, which need only be spent by those who desire to spend it or by those who feel that it is necessary to spend it. Members hate spending unnecessary money on anything, but I have to face the fact that there is a very strong feeling, both on this side of the House and, I think, on the other side below the Gangway, that anything like the figure mentioned by hon. Members of the Labour party is quite inadequate. It is necessary for us to spend more money. We have not quite got facilities that hon. Members opposite above the gangway have.
We need not go into those reasons, because they were gone into on the last occasion, but I have taken the trouble to make a few more analyses, as I was not quite sure about one of the figures I gave to the House the other day. I have had taken out very carefully the expenditure of the successful candidates for the London boroughs, and it is clear that the Labour party spent very much
less than we did. The Labour party won 20 seats in the London boroughs at the last election, in 1924, and they spent 2.65d. per elector, or under 2¾d. per elector. The Conservative party won 34 seats, and they spent just over 4d.—4.14d. per elector. Then we come to the Liberal party, who, I must say to my great delight, spent more than anybody else. I do not mean to suggest for a moment that they have more money to spend, but they did spend on the last occasion 4.34d. per elector. It is only fair to state to the House that there were only three of them who were successful.

Sir J. SIMON: Did nobody spend 4½d.?

6.0 p.m.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am speaking of the average. Of course, while we find that people spend 4.34d. and 4.14d., which are aver-ages, some would spend up to their maximum. Many members of boroughs in recent years have spent well up to their maximum. It is very largely on behalf of the unfortunate Liberal candidates that I want to ask the House not to accept this Amendment. Think for a moment what their position will be next time.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the Home Secretary say that the Liberal candidates now have unlimited resources upon which to call?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, but they have unlimited policies to put

before the constituencies. I want the House to consider, before depriving them of the right to spend 5d., what the position will be. It does not affect the Labour party or this party very much. The Liberal party has to explain the policy of both wings of the Liberal party, and exactly what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the other members of the party will say, and the independent Liberal elector will want to have a choice of the two policies. I think, on these grounds, it is desirable that the Liberal party should be able to spend the full maximum of 5d. I have been asked once again to leave this matter to the free vote of the House, I agreed and the Cabinet agreed, on the last occasion, that we thought it quite desirable that the matter should be left to a free vote of the House. It was so left. We had a full discussion a fortnight ago, and the House came to a definite conclusion both in regard to the boroughs and to the counties, and I accepted the conclusion to which they came. I think it is trifling with the House to ask that there should be again a free vote after the House has gone very fully indeed into the question and arrived at a decision. I, therefore, ask the House to support the decision at which the Committee arrived.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 100; Noes, 214.

Division No. 112.]
AYES.
[6.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lowth, T.


Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gates, Percy
Lunn, William


Albery, Irving James
Gillett, George M.
Mackinder, W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbra')
Gosling, Harry
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
March, S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Groves, T.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Barr. J.
Grundy, T. W.
Montague, Frederick


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Morris, R. H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardle, George D.
Naylor, T. E.


Briant, Frank
Harney, E. A.
Oliver, George Harold


Broad, F. A.
Harris, Percy A.
Owen, Major G.


Bromfield, William
Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W,


Bromley, J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Charleton, H. C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Potts, John S.


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson J. H. (Huddersfield)
Purceil, A. A.


Compton, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ritson, J.


Connolly, M.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Cowan. D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Scrymgeour, E.


Day, Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scurr, John


Dennison, R.
Lansbury, George
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lee, F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey. Rotherhithe)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snell, Harry
Tomlinson, R, P.
Windsor, Walter


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wright, W.


Stephen, Campbell
Viant, S. P.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney



Strauss, E. A.
Wiggins, William Martin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Trovte, Lieut.-Colonel
Frece, Sir Walter de
Peto. G. (Somerset, Frome)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pilcher, G.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Power, Sir John Cecil


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Ashley, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Goff, Sir Park
Raine, Sir Walter


Astbury, Lieut-Commander F. W.
Grace, John
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Astor, Viscountess
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland. N.)
Remer, J. R.


Atkinson, C.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Remnant, Sir James


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rentoul, G. S.


Balniel, Lord
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w. E)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Rice, Sir Frederick


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Ropner, Major L.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hamilton, Sir George
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut. Colonel E. A.


Bennett, A. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Berry, Sir George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Salmon, Major I.


Bethel. A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Betterton, Henry B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. B., Skipton)
Hasiam, Henry C.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hendlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brass, Captain W.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Brocklebank, C. E. R,
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Savery, S. S.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hopkins. J. W. W.
Scott Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Howard-Bury. Colonel C. K.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Buckingham. Sir H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd. Whiteh'n)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unlv., Beifst)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hurst, Gerald B.
Skelton. A. N.


Bullock, Captain M.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Burman, J. B.
James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smithers, Waldron


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Jephcott. A. R.
Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
King. Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Lamb, J. Q.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H (Ox. Univ.)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stuart, Crichton-. Lord C.


Chamberlain. Rt. Hn. Sir J. A (Birm., W.)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Loder, J. de V.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Long, Major Eric
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Looker, Herbert William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson. F. C. (Aberdeen. South)


Clayton. G. C.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Lumley. L. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Cohen. Major J. Brunei
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colman. N. C. D.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cooper, A. Duff
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Cope, Major William
Maclntyre, Ian
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hulll


Couper, J. B.
Macnghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Macquisten, F. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Croft. Brigadier-General Sir H.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, S. R.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Margesson, Captain D.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Meiler. R. J.
Williams. Com. C. (Devon. Torquay)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Meyer. Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford. Lichfield)


Dawson. Sir Phillip
Milne. J. S. Wardlaw.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Drewe, C.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wolmer, Viscount


Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsen. Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Womersley, W. J.


Edmondson. Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset. Bridgwater)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nelson. Sir Frank
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fade, Sir Bertram G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Falls, Sir Charles F.
Oakley, T.



Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Penny, Frederick George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fermoy, Lord
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor


Fielden, E. B.
Perkins. Colonel E. K.
Warrender.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — RABBITS BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (21st February), "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Sir BASIL PETO: This is a very short Bill by which it is sought to make provision to prevent damage by rabbits. I propose to show that the method of procedure proposed under the Bill cannot possibly achieve the object mentioned. When I was speaking on the former occasion and the Eleven o'Clock Rule intervened I said that, as far as my constituency and the county in which it was situated were concerned, I had not had any complaints from the occupiers of land or representations by them in favour of this Bill. Two and a half months have elapsed since I talked the Bill out, and I have had no such representation since. I am as conscious as any Member of the damage done by rabbits, but the vast proportion of the damage done to crops is not done by rabbits from a neighbour's territory, but from rabbits actually on the farm concerned. I remember that harrowing pictures were drawn by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) of damage done to mangel crops, but 90 per cent. of the damage is done by the rabbits which dwell and are born and bred in situ on the farm itself. This Bill, of course, does not touch the major part of the damage.
This Bill does not seek, as the Minister of Agriculture said in his speech, to charge—as was done under the Defence of the Realm Regulations and in the Rabbits and Rooks Bill—the Ministry with the duties of dealing with this nuisance, but the Ministry propose, what the House is constantly passing Bills to do—to hand something over to the local authorities, and to put a fresh burden on the county councils, involving fresh appointments and fresh expenditure, which must ultimately be borne by the ratepayers. I know that local authorities feel this very strongly, I might almost say bitterly. Ratepayers are always complaining of the multifarious duties put upon local authorities involving expenditure through the rates, but this House is always giving them fresh
duties to perform. In this case, I believe, they are putting upon them a duty which no authority could possibly perform effectively, if the purpose be to abate the nuisance of damage done by rabbits.

Sir R. SANDERS: Does the right hon. Gentleman allege that county councils object to this duty?

Sir B. PETO: I will repeat what I said. I said that county councils and other local authorities feel very bitterly about the legislation constantly passed by this House imposing fresh duties upon them, involving them in further expenditure, and requiring the appointment of so many sub-committees that it is almost impossible for the members of those bodies to find time to attend to their multifarious duties.

Sir R. SANDERS: The question I asked the hon. Baronet was whether the county councils object to having this specific duty put upon them?

Sir B. PETO: I have not heard that they do. The second reason why I object to the Bill is this. As the Minister for Agriculture has pointed out, the Rooks and Rabbits Bill was examined by a Select Committee of the House of Lords, who threw, it out on the ground that they did not agree with the provisions regarding rooks—rooks have been left out of this Bill—and also said that, while they considered that some means of protection or compensation should be given for damage done by a neighbour's rabbits, they favoured compensation. This Bill, which is supposed to be based upon the findings of that Select Committee, is based entirely on the principle of trying to afford protection against damage rather than of providing compensation. I believe the protection proposed by this Bill is absolutely illusory, and that the best form of protection is compensation for the damage which is done at this time of year, when the abating of the nuisance is quite impracticable. Liability to pay such compensation would make quite sure that the person who was injuring his neighbour in this respect would abate the nuisance at the only time when it can be dealt with, and that is in the winter months. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb), speaking in support of this Bill, said:
If you are to have damage done and then to go to the Court for compensation, it is not nearly so likely that you will retain the good feeling between the two parties interested in agriculture as if you have a process under which you can prevent the damage being done.
I should absolutely agree with that if there were any such process feasible or possible, but I would call attention to the next sentence in the hon. Member's speech:
I do not think there is a single Member here who realises the great amount of loss of food there is through the damage done by rabbits. A man may spend any amount of money and time in the proper cultivation of his land and in sowing a crop, and almost in one night, if there are rabbits in excess, they will spoil the whole of that useful labour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1928; cal. 1566, Vol. 213.]
If, as is quite true a great amount of damage can be done in a short time—I will not say one night—in the months of May, June and July to growing corn crops, how does the hon. Member reconcile that with his previous statement that what is required is something which will prevent the damage being done, damage which he says can be done in a single night? In my view those appeals are contradictory. What happens is this. In the winter no excessive number of rabbits may appear to have been left, but about this time of year, when they have already multiplied, one may find quite a number of rabbits of various sizes, down to the very small ones, coming through fences along their regular runs into the cornfields. At this time of year and later, when the herbage has grown, it is my experience that there is only one way of dealing with rabbits at all, and no way of dealing with them really effectively. The most effectual method is to set wires or traps, which are prohibited under this Bill, in the runs which the rabbits use. That can be done best on the complainant's land—far better than it can be attempted by invading the place from which the rabbits are supposed to come and trying to get rid of them in the summer. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) put that point as succinctly and as clearly as it could possibly be put, and as it is two and a half months since the Second Reading discussion was begun, perhaps
the House will excuse me for quoting a sentence from his speech. He said:
There is no gamekeeper or anybody who has any knowledge at all of dealing with these pests who will say that you can deal with rabbits at the time when they are doing the damage, that is, in May or June, or later in the season. The only time to keep them down is in the winter, when you can trap and shoot them."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1928; col. 1561, Vol 213.]
That is the whole case from the zoological point of view. Any gamekeeper or anyone with practical experience of these things will tell you at once that the whole basis of the two operative clauses of this Bill is absolutely illusory. It must have been constructed by people who have a limited knowledge of country affairs and none whatever of the art of rabbit trapping and keeping rabbits down. Clause 1 of the Bill assumes that the damage is actually being done, and that being so, in my view the proper way of dealing with the substantial damage contemplated is to give compensation by a simple process of law, if it be refused, and in my experience it very rarely is refused, after proper representations between person and person. I would like, in passing, to make one reference to a statement by the Minister in his opening speech that this was a Bill as between occupier and owner. He said:
In the ordinary way, no doubt, as soon as representations are made to an owner he will abate the nuisance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1928; cols. 1549–50, Vol. 213.]
The House will bear in mind that this is not a Bill based upon the alleged damage done by a landowner to an occupier. It is a Bill based upon a procedure which is to take place between occupier and occupier. The complainant is an occupier of land who complains of damage done to his crops, and he complains to the occupier of the adjoining land. In the definition Clause of the Bill an occupier may even include the person in whom is vested the right to kill rabbits on the land, that means, an occupier of the land or a rabbit trapper or other person of that type to whom he has entrusted the duty of keeping down the rabbits. The only effective procedure in my view is compensation for the damage done at the time, and for steps to be taken to abate the nuisance at the proper season of the year.
I oppose the Bill, because I think that from first to last it is wrongly drafted, the whole operative part of it being based upon the principle of prevention rather than compensation, and that makes it quite impossible to amend it in Committee. The Bill ought to provide for a simple and summary procedure for recovering civil damages in a Court of Law. A Court would then order an inspection of the land. There is no necessity to set up any new inspectors. In the neighbourhood of every Magisterial Bench or County Court there are plenty of land surveyors, valuers and people of that kind perfectly competent to assess the value of the damage, and the whole thing could be done simply without the necessity for making any appointments of fresh officials. I also oppose the Bill because it cannot possibly achieve its object. It shows a complete absence of knowledge of the habits of rabbits and, I think, of the habits of men. It is difficult or impossible to carry it out, and in any case the duty of abating the nuisance will be imposed upon a man at a time when it is quite impossible to achieve it. I believe that the Bill, if it is ever passed, will be a dead letter. Seeing that it provides for proceedings being started between occupier and occupier it will create friction, and I think that in many cases the provisions of the Bill if they are ever put into operation at all may possibly be put into operation merely as a means of using its cumbrous procedure to help a man "get back upon" his neighbour in regard to some previous grievance. Far from being a Bill to promote peace and amity between neighbouring occupiers of land, as the hon. Member for Stone said, the Bill may have absolutely the opposite effect. If this Bill would prevent even 10 per cent. of the damage done to crops by a neighbour's rabbits, I should not dream of opposing it, but I oppose it because it is based upon a complete negation of the findings of the Select Committee. I believe the Committee were perfectly right in saying that compensation was the proper method of dealing with this difficulty.

Sir EDMUND TURTON: The hon. Baronet is no doubt perfectly accurate in saying that complaint has been made from time to time of the increasing obligations put upon local authorities, but
a county council happens to be an extremely loyal body, and is always ready to take upon itself such duties as Parliament in its wisdom may think it necessary for it to carry out. The County Councils' Association have had before them this Bill, and I would like to mention, in passing, that the different Government Departments are always good enough to send to them an outline of proposed legislation as far as it affects county councils. The County Councils' Association considered this Bill in all its bearings, and came to the conclusion that it was a Bill which could be worked by county councils. The Association do not as a rule express any view one way or the other in regard to any Measure which is put before them, but they came to the conclusion that in this particular case they were justified in passing a resolution to say that in their judgment the matter ought to be dealt with in the way proposed by this legislation. Accordingly, they deputed Lord Cottesloe and myself to give evidence before the Select Committee in another place in support of the Bill, in the form in which it then was.
I gather that there may be some little doubt in the mind of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) as to there being any trouble at all regarding an excess of rabbits. I prefer to take the view of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), who admitted that there is a wrong which ought to be righted by Parliament. I gather from the remarks of the two hon. Baronets that the issue before the House is not that this matter is to be left alone, but whether it could be met by legal process and compensation given to the occupier who suffers damage; or whether the process under the Bill is the best method. I do not want to repeat the evidence which I gave before the Select Committee. I know the Minister referred to it on Second Reading, but I say it is an extremely unfortunate thing to have litigation between neighbours, because it will lead to unpleasantness and difficulties. We must not overlook the fact that a very great cost would be involved in an action between an occupier and his neighbour who might sue for compensation. Hon. Members know that the County Courts in country districts generally sit about once every two
months. In these cases an enormous bill of costs might be incurred out of all proportion to the issues involved. What is more, litigation would not prevent the evil with which we seek to deal. What we want is to prevent damage being done by the ravages of rabbits. A farmer does not farm in order to make rabbit food, but to produce food for the people, who ought to receive the benefit of that production, and nothing will compensate a farmer for having his crops trampled down. There is nothing to be said in favour of allowing compensation to be paid year after year, because you will only have the same trouble in the future.
I want to put forward some reasons why you should place this duty upon the county councils. It has been argued that the Government are putting an impossible task upon county councils under this Bill, but I would like to remind hon. Members that, as a rule, the members of county councils are people who live in the country; they are often men experienced in agricultural affairs, with a knowledge of sport, and can it be contended that these people would not understand the question of getting rid of a few rabbits? At the present time county councils have to deal with small holdings and matters of that kind, and they have been given far more delicate duties to perform than that of getting rid of a few rabbits. If a farm is not being cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, the county councils have the duty of saying whether this is or is not being carried out by the farmers, and that is not an easy thing to do. If a cottage is required on a farm, a certificate has to be given by the county council. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Captain Hope) said that he would defy anybody to go on land and say whether or not there were any rabbits there. You only need to look at the state of the crop. If it is a crop of barley or oats, and you find that it has been beaten down, you have a right to assume that rabbits are there.

Captain HOPE: I did not make that remark. I said when going on strange land you could not tell whether there are too many rabbits on the land or not.

Sir E. TURTON: I say deliberately that you can tell whether there are too many rabbits on the land. I own a large
estate, and I take good care that all the rabbits are cleared out of the woods, so that they shall not do any damage to my tenants' crops. Only a few weeks ago I was told that on certain farms there were rabbits and they got into the woods; but nevertheless they did damage and I at once set two game-keepers to keep them down. It is possible for anybody with any practical knowledge of the country to say whether there are too many rabbits and whether they are so numerous that they are likely to do damage to the crop. There is no intention of exterminating rabbits. As a rule farmers like the rabbits, and they are good sportsmen. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton spoke about ferrets. He said that it would be a very slow job to use the ferret, and people were likely to get bitten. Probably the hon. Member had in his mind the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Sir C. Wilson), and I daresay he would be clumsy enough to be bitten by a ferret. It is quite a safe thing if you know how to hold the ferret. If you place your finger under its fore paws, then I defy anybody to be bitten by a ferret. So much for the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton.
I would like to refer to a very curious and laughable speech which was made by the hon. Member for Central Leeds. I am sorry he is not present, because I propose to say one or two home truths, which, I think, will show that in his speech he has not shone in a very good light. His arguments seemed to be "never mind the farmer or the expense they have been put to in ploughing, sowing, or in the payment of rates. Never mind all that as long as I have plenty of rabbit skins and maggots." I would like to point out to my hon. Friend that this is not a Bill for the extermination of rabbits, or maggots either. If the Bill goes through, the hon. Member for Central Leeds will still be able to buy rabbit skins as much as he likes. The hon. Member told us that rabbit skins were sold at a farthing each, but I know the price paid to the scullery maid is never less than 3d. On the question of shooting syndicates, I think the Minister was right when he said that the increase of rabbits is definitely encouraged by shooting syndicates. I have no doubt that is perfectly true, but I want to point out to the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead that in all these agreements
for shooting, the syndicates have a clause by which they pay all the compensation with regard to this matter; this is a direct incitement to them to pay compensation, and, therefore, the rabbits are to be left alone.
Some of those who are opposing this Bill are incurring a great responsibility. We do not want the whole question of the game laws put into the melting-pot, but if this issue is raised, those of us who wish to keep our own shooting rights may regret it, because they may be taken away from us. I know many farmers, and if the shooting right is to be let at all, the occupier should have the first offer, and I do not think it would be wise to make the farmers angry. After all, if there are two horses—the farmer and the syndicate—you will be backing the wrong horse if you back the syndicate. The people who compose these syndicates are people with no shooting of their own, and people you would not invite to shoot with you. Therefore, I do not think we ought to pay much attention to them. They are all good shooters but bad hitters, and very probably a small number of rabbits will be quite sufficient for them.
May I now come back to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Central Leeds? In the first place, he criticised the county councils. It is quite certain that he has not much knowledge of county councils, and is not likely to have, because at the last March election, when he stood as a county council candidate, he received a contemptuous number of votes and was at the bottom of the poll. Therefore, I hope the House was not unduly impressed with the speech of the hon. Member for Central Leeds on that point. The hon. Member also told us about unemployment, and he thought he would throw a bait for votes, but it must have been a maggot bait. He pointed out that a large amount of unemployment would follow in the hat-making and the rabbit-skin trades as well as the maggot trade if this Bill became law. Let me point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that unless this Bill passes, the present state of things must necessarily cause unemployment. If there is no harvest, then no men will he employed. If you do not stop this evil what unquestionably will happen will be that the farmers will lay down grass instead of arable land on
each side of the covert, and the proportion of men employed in arable production is three to one as compared with grass. I ask hon. Members opposite to take my nice little trout fly rather than the dirty old maggot of the hon. Member for Central Leeds. Then the hon. Member talked about the informer, but I have yet to learn that there is any question of the informer at all. There is no such thing in the Bill. The complaint must be made by an occupier who suffers damage by reason of the adjoining occupier, and there is no question of an informer or anything of the sort.

Mr. GROTRIAN: Has my hon. Friend read Clause 1?

Sir E. TURTON: I am surprised that a learned King's Counsel cannot read the first Clause of this Bill. I will give him a lay opinion for nothing—I will not charge him £2 4s. 6d. It is the occupier who has got into trouble by reason of damage done by an adjoining occupier. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the time of the House, but I want just to say this in conclusion. The county councils have passed these resolutions perfectly genuinely, and they have no politics at all—

Mr. HARDIE: What do you do with poachers?

Sir E. TURTON: The county councils will carry out these duties loyally. They are very difficult and very delicate duties, but I believe that, if this legislation is passed, it will more than anything else serve as a "big stick." Once the county councils have this power, and once the people who have too many rabbits in their woods recognise that there is a body which is able to deal with them, I believe it will go a long way to do away with this evil. The County Councils' Association have not asked or invited the Government to give this power, but, if it is given, we promise to carry it out loyally to the best of our ability, and I am quite certain that, if it is given, it will do away with a great deal of friction and a great deal of trouble, and will certainly obviate the waste of food and of farmers' crops which is going on at the present time.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I rise to support this Bill most cordially, and I agree with almost everything that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton). Certain of the points which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) require an answer. He suggested that the enforcement of this Bill, and the making of the appointments necessary for the purpose, will place a further burden on the county councils, but I do not hesitate to say, from personal knowledge, that the county councils not only have no objection to this Bill, but welcome it, and will willingly and skilfully enforce it. The cost of doing so will be very small, and they are thoroughly conversant with all the circumstances which arise in cases where there is an extreme number of rabbits. After all, this Bill is not intended to exterminate all the rabbits in the Kingdom. I should be the last person to agree to anything of that kind; but there is no getting away from the fact that rabbits are, at the present time, an intolerable burden on agriculture, horticulture and forestry, and it is not too much to say that, if every rabbit in the United Kingdom were exterminated during the next six months—an impossibility, I agree—we should be a very much richer and more prosperous nation than we are to-day. It seems to me that there is only one compensating advantage—an advantage, which being fond of shooting, I fully appreciate—and that is the sport which the rabbit provides. Everyone who goes in for shooting likes shooting rabbits, but that is the only compensation that can be put forward.
Personally, I am inclined to the opinion that the opposition to this Bill arises largely because of the name of the Bill. It is very unfortunate that rabbits should be called rabbits, that being a term of contempt for various types of people, and it naturally encourages the humorists, alleged and otherwise, to put forth their best efforts in opposing the Bill. That, however, does not in the slightest degree weaken my support for the Bill. I was immensely amused by several of the speeches that have been made against the Bill, but it does not seem to me that any argument has been adduced which would really justify keep-
ing back this very long overdue legislation. Another point that has been put forward against the Bill is that it would lead to the making of frivolous complaints, or, rather, to an army of informers making trouble for their neighbours simply in order, so to speak, to get their own back. That point was put forward particularly by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Sir C. Wilson), who suggested that there would be scores of common informers. After all, however, the Bill does not contain anything that would in the slightest degree support the common informer. It says that a complaint must be lodged by a person who suffers or expects to suffer damage to his crops, trees, fences and so forth; but he is not a common informer, and he has every right to try to get some compensation for his damaged crop.
There is a further safeguard, which to my mind is a very good one, and which might, perhaps, to meet the opponents of the Bill, be altered in Committee by making the sum a little bigger. I think that the county councils are fully justified in asking the complainant to put up a sum of £2 for the necessary expenses of making an investigation to see whether what he says is or is not a fact. That is certainly a very proper safeguard. Then it has been suggested that the county councils will engage numbers of people to run about loose all over the land; but the Bill gives almost unlimited opportunities of abating the nuisance without the necessity for people running about to see whether it is there. All that is necessary is that a complaint should be made, when the man who has the excessive quantity of rabbits will very quickly take steps to abate the nuisance. I maintain strongly that, if a man goes on allowing food to be spoilt, crops to be utterly ruined, and so forth, he deserves, after being thoroughly well warned, any fate that the county council or the law would be likely to put upon him.
It has been said, and I think there is something in favour of the argument, that great difficulty would be met with in getting this nuisance abated, but what, after all, has been the experience in regard to the eradication of noxious weeds? I think I am quoting the exact figures when I say that over 90 per cent. of the cases in which complaints have been made in regard to noxious weeds
have been met without any further action on the part of the county councils or the authorities concerned. What happens is, of course, that the man complained of says, "I cannot go on like this; I will remove the weeds." I have seen that happen myself again and again, and the result is that only in very few cases is it necessary to take the drastic action which many hon. Members seem to fear.
With regard to the vexed question as to whether there should be compensation or actual abatement of the nuisance, I am whole-heartedly in favour of abatement of the nuisance, as against anything in the nature of civil action or very doubtful compensation. Nothing is more difficult to prove than damage, unless it is very serious. Slight damage is very difficult indeed to prove, and, after all—and I should like to press this point—every self-respecting farmer in this country would far sooner harvest a good crop than be paid any amount of compensation for a spoilt one. I have no hesitation in saying that, and really, to my mind, it is the crux of the whole matter. What the farmer wants at the present time is not compensation, but freedom to get on and grow his own crops and to produce good ones. I cannot think of anything more unpleasant to look at than a crop which has been spoilt by rabbits. One or two Members have spoken of the difficulty of knowing whether there are too many rabbits about. I am sure they will agree with me that it is a perfectly well-known fact, and is observable every day in any country where there are rabbits, that no stock will feed on grass which has been contaminated by rabbits. We talk of laying down to grass the land outside covers, and that is one precaution that the farmer can take, but, even then, in the first place, he does not get his hay, and secondly, his stock will not feed on the grass where rabbits have fouled it.
The hon. Member for Central Leeds, who made so humorous a speech, was in great trouble on the subject of his hats and the fur that goes to make them, but, after all, hats are not by any manner of means always made out of rabbit fur. I would, however, submit to him as a business man that, if he likes, he can put his money into a most profitable enterprise, namely, the actual farming of rabbits. A rabbit farm can easily be created and
run on commercial lines so as to give a really good yield. Details are obtainable by anyone who wants them. It only needs poor land properly fenced, and, if it is run properly, it yields a very good profit, so that the hon. Member for Central Leeds could in that way get plenty of fur for his hats.
It has been suggested that this Bill has no real support from the local authorities, but I maintain that it has their very strong support. I know that 12 or 14 county councils have very strongly expressed their approval of the Bill quite recently, although I cannot speak, like my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, for the County Councils' Association, beyond saying that they very cordially support the idea of the Bill and would like to see it brought in as a step towards doing away with what is, I submit, an intolerable nuisance and burden upon agriculture and upon horticulture also. There is just one other point. It is suggested that the Ground Game Act is sufficient, but that is not the case. I have had personal experience of it, and have seen case after case where people are not able to keep down the rabbits that are spoiling their crops, because they are not allowed access to the covers that surround their land, and they are, therefore, placed in a very difficult and, indeed, intolerable position. Farmers, in the difficult position in which so many of them are to-day, should not be asked to go to all the trouble of bringing a civil action, with the attendant expenditure of time and money, and the improbability of getting proper compensation, when they would sooner have had a good crop than a spoilt one.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I can assure the hon. Member opposite, who expressed wonder whether the Members of the Opposition had taken the maggot-baited hook of the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Sir C. Wilson), that we propose, if a Division takes place on this Motion, to support the Bill. We believe that the first business of the land is to produce food. We know that land all over the country is ruined by rabbits. We believe that that nuisance should be abated, mid we propose to support this Bill in the interests of the food supply of the country. But, as far as we can see, there are loopholes even in this Bill. There is nothing
in it to prevent contracting-out, to prevent the sporting landlord from compelling or inducing his tenants to sign forms contracting-out of any appeal to the county council against their neighbours having a surplus of rabbits. In these cases we think that the Bill should be strengthened. We know, from experience in the case of deer forests, that the method of compensation does not suffice. Farmers are afraid in some cases and unable in others to put forward proper claims for compensation. I believe the experience of the farmers in Scotland is, as far as it is voiced by the National Farmers' Union, that regulations based on the idea of compensation do not suffice to protect their crops from the depredations of deer, and the same thing applies to rabbits. We would like to see some wider provisions which would enable proper methods to be taken for dealing with this nuisance, and some additional regulations included in the Bill making it easier for poachers.

Mr. HARDIE: That is the only cure. Let the public get at them.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I have, as I am sure many other hon. Members have, engaged in poaching rabbits. There are unemployed colliers in my neighbourhood, for the most part in a state of destitution, who would be willing to travel long distances to abate any nuisance caused by a surplus of rabbits. I hope the promoters of this Bill will not object if Members on this side of the House attempt to strengthen the provisions of this Bill, and to make it easier for poachers to abate the nuisance.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: As to what has been said about rabbits and poor land, I do not know whether in the interests of the food supply of this country the rabbits would not be more profitable than some of the food got off the land. I have been responsible for the building perhaps of thousands more rabbit-proof fencing than anybody in the world. We built some miles to keep the rabbits from Eastern Australia entering West Australia. In Eastern Australia they subsequently found rabbits were a very profitable source of revenue, and some of the best chicken eaten in this country is really Victorian rabbit. From the point of view of the food supply, I do not know which
is better. This Bill seems to me to be going to set up a new bureaucracy, with more inspectors to be appointed, and all the rest of the paraphernalia, for all of which the poor farmer has to pay. I would impress upon the Minister of Agriculture that, in regard to rabbits, he should give consideration to a new industry which is springing up in this country. Only two weeks ago I inspected an estate owned by an Australian devoted to pedigree rabbits, and they were growing better Angora wool than I have ever seen. If you want to encourage the production of these pedigree rabbits that are going to produce good wool, you should do it by every means in your power. In most countries, where the rabbit has been a nuisance, it is the person who owns the land who puts the rabbit-proof fence to keep them out. In Australia we put up 4,000 miles of fence originally, but unfortunately the rabbits got through, and we had to put up additional miles of fence. The point is that we saved the agricultural areas from the rabbits. In the more closely congested areas, however, they have been a source of revenue to a very large number of farmers. I hope the Minister will, in Committee, give consideration to the question whether exemption should not be given in cases where the breeding of high-class rabbits for wool is being carried on.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The hon. Member for Richmond (Sir N. Moore) would naturally prefer some other method than that indicated in this Bill for dealing with the rabbit pest, but when he suggests that people breeding high-class rabbits and Angora wool should be exempted from this Measure he need have no fear on that score. After all, these rabbits, which are bred for their fur in that way, have to be very carefully looked after. They are kept in hutches, and it is very nearly a full day's work to look after any quantity of them. There is no question of turning them out into coverts, or of their ruining crops, or anything of that kind. They are not dealt with at all by this Bill and are absolutely safe from it. I only rose to express my approval of the Bill. It is a humble Measure and small in its scope. It has been reduced in its scope since we last saw it. The rooks have been
taken out, but still, such as it is, it is a useful Measure, and one which is capable of improvement. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it, with his usual courtesy and breadth of mind, will be open to suggestions which will be made to him in the course of the calm Committee stage. With those few remarks and reservations, I wish to express my approval and support.

Mr. MACCLUISTEN: We have three pests in the Highlands, the bracken, the rabbits and the steamboat transport, which break the calm of the Highlands. Some of the people who breed rabbits find it cheaper to skin the rabbits and throw away the carcases to save transport charges. Rabbits are not like rooks. I am sorry the rooks have flown out of this Bill. Rooks, if not too numerous, are the farmer's friend and destroy a great deal of vermin, but rabbits serve no useful purpose whatever on the land. I am surprised that an hon. Member says you cannot tell whether there are too many rabbits on the land or not. You can see at once when you look at the land whether there are rabbits or not. I do not know where his eyesight is, or where his nostrils are, for if he stoops down to the ground he will know. There ought not to be any at all. I know on one Scottish estate belonging to an Earl, whose son is in this House, the owner makes it an absolute rule that, if he sees a rabbit a second time, the people get notice. He makes it an absolute rule, because they destroy so much, and he is one of those beneficent landlords who lets the shooting with the land to the farmers. I have shot with some of the farmers on the estate, and it is a very pleasant shoot to have, because they act as keepers and board you on reasonable terms, and do not expect £5 notes at the conclusion of the shoot, which is a consideration to a person of economical mind. The keeper is really the vermin destroyer. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) spoke about poachers. There are only two people interested in game preserving, the game-preserver, or landlord, and the poacher. If there was nothing preserved there would be nothing to poach. The consequence is that the game-preserver is the best friend of the poacher. The more keepers there are, the more friends the poacher has. Where rabbits are
prevalent they are one of the principal causes of spreading tuberculosis among cattle. We have exterminated them from time to time, but they come back again very quickly. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that rabbits could be kept as a suitable stock for poor land, but will they keep to the poor land? They are the most determined trespassers we know. They pay no attention to notices. This is a good Bill in that it prevents the starting of the evil. The hon. Member said that, if you have the big stick, as he calls it, you can soon put an end to it. To suggest to a man, who goes out brokenhearted and sees all his crop nibbled away by rabbits from a plantation into which he cannot go, that he should take the owner of the plantation into the Small Debts Court or the County Court and get damages is to suggest an impossible thing. The real thing is for him to be able to go to his landlord and say, "You have a good deal more interest in rabbits than in farming. You are what is called a gentleman farmer. That is to say, you lose money gradually. You have got to stop this or I will put the county council on you." It is like the case of a man with an insanitary drain. The inspector is sent, and he gets it put right. That is all that will happen. I do not believe that this power will ever be exercised.
As to rabbits being bred for fur, we know that all the valuable furs, sealskins and others, worn by the fair sex are nearly all made of rabbits and come from Australia. Rabbits are the universal provider. I have seen tons of rabbit skins beautifully dyed, all from Australia. You are encouraging people to buy Empire goods if you put down these vermin that are doing so much damage and breaking the hearts of the farmers of this country. I recollect the old land campaign of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and his reference to the pheasants that eat mangel-wurzels. If he had really addressed himself to the coneys, who are a Bible folk with their habitations among the rocks, he would have been dealing with the vermin that do the real damage to the farmer. A good landlord, apart from questions of shooting, ought to see that there are no rabbits on his land. Have as many
hares as you like. They do not do anything like the damage; they are never as numerous. I have a good knowledge of both rabbits and hares. I have carried ferrets in my pockets and had them running up and down my sleeves. I have ferreted in all parts, and am thoroughly acquainted with both rabbits and hares. The hare has nothing like the same power to add to its numbers as the rabbit. The descendants of a rabbit after four years come to something like 4,000,000. The consequence is that the landowner should wage ceaseless war against them.

Mr. WHEATLEY: When the hon. Member speaks of hares, does he mean electric hares?

Mr. MACDUISTEN: No, that is quite a different thing. It is only in some parts that you find hares in anything like numbers, but they never do the damage that rabbits do, and they are capable of being kept within reasonable numbers. It is almost impossible to keep down rabbits. That is one of the difficulties I see here. Unless charges and freights are lower, Sub-section (2) of Clause I will not come much into operation. This is on the whole a Bill beneficial to agriculture. I am sure the farmer will like it, and if the landowner realises his duty, he will be only too glad to have this power put into the hands of the county councils and will take care that the powers are put into operation.

Mr. GROTRIAN: We have had a most amusing speech from the hon. Baronet the Member for Thirsk (Sir E. Turton) and we all enjoyed it, but I think he has a little misapprehended the reason some of us are opposing the Bill. We think it is quite unworkable, so much so that it must have been drawn by someone who has never seen a rabbit except in a pie. However that may be, that is our objection to it. My experience as a landowner and a shooting tenant for 40 years is that in the winter months the rabbits are fit to shoot, and it the landlord or the tenant shoots them down, or traps them down, too close, he has complaints from the farmer that he is not leaving him any rabbits. On the other hand, when you come to the summer months,
when the rabbits are of no value to anyone, he immediately says: "Look at the damage your rabbits are doing to my land." If that is so, you will get these complaints in the summer months, and what we want to know is how the county council or anyone else is going to keep down the rabbits in May, June, or July. It cannot be done. It would be very inhumane to trap down the mother rabbits with young ones. You cannot ferret them, and there is no method of which I know whereby you can kill down rabbits in the summer months. Yet the person who is complained of has to do it within 21 days. I agree that if you can do an impossible thing you can do it in 21 days, but otherwise you cannot do it at all, and we believe the Bill is illusory and unworkable. While we all admit that the evil exists, I believe this is not the way to get rid of it. I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) that compensation is a much safer and better way, but this will jeopardise a man's right to compensation, because when he comes for compensation they will say: "Why did you not report it to the county council and get them to kill the rabbits?" For these, amongst other reasons, I oppose the Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) seems to have assumed from my remark that I was out for the extermination of rabbits altogether. This Bill does not seek to do that. Even if it is true that the gamekeeper was the forerunner of the poacher, the poacher was the forerunner of the gamekeeper, because if you did not have the poacher you would have no gamekeeper. It is a strange thing that the British Parliament, the hub of the universe and all things intelligible, should be discussing a Bill for the suppression of rabbits while it has on its Statute Book the natural means for the reduction of rabbits. When the hon. Baronet the Member for Thirsk (Sir E. Turton) was speaking in that most interesting way, I wondered what he would do if the poacher was brought before him. I should like to know the logic of his mind.

Sir E. TU RTON: I should do justice. I have sworn to do it.

Mr. HARDIE: The hon. Baronet is prepared to take something that is called the law and to become illogical and unjust. He is fighting for the Bill and for the right of reducing the number of rabbits, because they do damage, and yet he is prepared as a magistrate to send a man to gaol for doing the very same thing. It is strange that in the British Parliament we should be wasting time in this way. If we just made the law a little easier there would be no need for a Bill of this kind. The poacher is not a man who goes out to exterminate game. He wants to be able to go back and get more. If you leave him alone he is naturally intelligent, and he will see that you get the right number left at all seasons. His interest as a poacher will make him do that. It seems to me absurd that the House of Commons should be trying to pass legislation while they have the natural organisation to hand. [Interruption.] I am talking about the human poacher. The poacher who knows his business does not need to wait for night or to know where the gamekeeper is. He can do it while he is talking to the gamekeeper if he knows his business. I want to make a challenge to anyone who wants to get rid of rabbits. I was in Scotland at an open-air meeting, and I saw a hundred men, whom I should be able to get by wire, who would reduce up to 75 per cent. in a fortnight. There is no need for a Bill at all if you leave the poacher alone.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): It is very remarkable that throughout the Debate there has been no denial of the damage done to agriculture by rabbits. I do not think we should have had the necessity for a second day of discussion if it had not been that this subject always tempts the House to a rather hilarious mood. The hon. Baronet the Member for Central Leeds (Sir C. Wilson) made a speech in which he claimed the right of the hat industry to override the interests of every other industry in the country and to pasture the rabbits it needed on other people's lands and crops. He treated the matter as a joke. It is by no means a joke to the farmers in many parts of the country. I have a constituent who suffers very much from the rabbit pest, and he wrote to the hon. Baronet and told him the damage it was doing to his crops, and said rabbits were very much like Mem-
bers of Parliament—they ought to be kept in their proper place. I do not deny that the industry of hat-making is important, but it is nothing like so important as the production of food. The hon. Member for Richmond (Sir N. Moore) seemed to think the passage of the Bill would imperil the young and valuable industry of Angora and Chinchilla and other fancy rabbits. Of course they would be in no way affected. They are not bred in the open air. They are carefully tended under cover. Anyhow, if people want to have them, there is no reason why they should not pay for their keep, and there is no justification for quartering them upon their neighbours. There is no obstacle to people keeping rabbits on their own land. They have only to put up wire netting so that the rabbits do not become a nuisance to their neighbours.
The only criticism of the Bill has been on the ground of the procedure that is proposed. Even the hon. Baronet the Member for Central Leeds admitted that there was a case for some machinery to be set up. He suggested that the County Court would be better than the County Agricultural Committee. Surely, if that is so, he ought to be satisfied with our proposal in regard to appeals, because if anyone is aggrieved by an Order under the Bill, it is open to him on the widest grounds to appeal. But I think in practice it will be found that the occasion will rarely arise. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) seems to think it is a new departure that these powers should be conferred on County Councils. It is true that under D.O.R.A. the Ministry of Agriculture was responsible, but they immediately delegated their powers to the County Agricultural Executive Committees, and they were carried out without any friction for several years. The County Agricultural Committees are reasonable bodies. There is no case for the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Lewes (Read-Admiral Beamish) that they would order people to kill their rabbits at short notice during a period of the year when there is a great deal of undergrowth and when it would be impossible to carry out the order. [An HON. MEMBER: "They can do it!"] They can do all kinds of absurdities.

Mr. GROTRIAN: That is when they are doing the damage.

Mr. GUINNESS: There is no obligation on them to catch the rabbits when they are doing the damage.

Sir B. PETO: If they do not do that, how are they to prevent the damage?

Mr. GUINNESS: They will make an order for the destruction of the rabbits or for the adoption of measures, in the words of the Bill, "to abate or prevent the damage" by a certain time—not less than 21 days. There is no possibility of these local authorities making an unreasonable order and calling on the occupier to destroy the rabbits at a period when he could not carry it out. No doubt in cases where the crops are suffering they will begin by making representations. If these representations fail in the last resort, they will make an order. There is no reason to expect that they will make an order to destroy the rabbits or abate the nuisance in unreasonable time.

Major PRICE: Will my right hon. Friend point out in what respect the Bill asks for representations to be made?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Bill does not ask for representations to be made, but the universal procedure is, as it is with regard to noxious weeds under the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, which is administered by the same authority, that when a man becomes a nuisance to his neighbours friendly representations are made. He is first asked to abate the nuisance, and it is only in the last resort that the local authority puts into operation the machinery for making the order. After all, when an order is made, it will only be on a recalcitrant owner, and if that owner chooses to go to the County Court, he will have exactly that right of a legal hearing for which the opponents of this Bill have been asking.

Major PRICE: He cannot go before the county council.

Mr. GUINNESS: After all, if the nuisance exists and hon. Members agree that it should be abated it surely is not unreasonable that the local authority, with its other agricultural responsibilities, should be made responsible for administering the order for the abatement of this nuisance.

Major PRICE: My point really was this, that there is no opportunity for the
man complained against to put his case before the county council. We know perfectly well that in many cases where the county council have a right to do something they hear an ex parte application, draw up their case and give their verdict upon that ex parte statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It is often done. It is especially done in the case of tied cottages.

Mr. GUINNESS: In the case of weeds, the experience is that the County Councils make representations before they make an order, and that is the stage at which the County Council will hear the case of the men with whom they are dealing. If the rabbit owner is not satisfied with the reasonableness of the order, he may go to the County Court, and the County Court will hear him just as well as the County Agricultural Committee. Really, I think the House has been asked for a great deal of misplaced sympathy in this case. We need not worry about those people who quarter their rabbits on to their neighbours' crops, and we ought to prefer the claims of those upon whose crops they are quartered.

Captain O'CONNOR: In view of the extra burden now proposed to be cast upon the already scandalously underpaid County Court Judges, will my right hon. Friend represent to his colleagues in the Cabinet that this is the appropriate moment to deal with an increase of their salaries?

Major PRICE: I do not wish to delay the House, especially at this time. I think we ought to turn our minds to the Clauses of the Bill and see what they say. We have had a good many speeches which were quite irrelevant to the Clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 says not only that if damage is being caused hut that if damage is likely to be caused, the occupier of one farm can complain against the occupiers of all the adjoining farms and bring the matter before the county council. In fairness to all parties we should insist that where a man is likely to have an order made against him by the county council he is entitled to be represented at the hearing, and bring such evidence as is necessary to prevent the order being made. Hon. Members have suggested that litigation must be avoided. This Bill is asking for litigation, because
every time a man has an order made against him, and has not had a chance of putting his ease before the county council, he has immediately the right to plunge into litigation. Unfortunately, his litigation will be against the public authority of which he is one of the ratepayers. Thus, he will be finding the money on both sides, and is bound to lose. I think that where you are dealing with the complaints that can so easily be made, we ought to provide that those complaints should be thoroughly investigated by the body which is going to have something in the nature of judicial authority over the matter. Clause 1, Sub-section (3), says:
Where a county council have been requested by a complainant to exercise their powers under this Section with respect to any land in their area they may authorise any person to enter on and inspect the land on their behalf.
What we want to do, is to inspect the land where the rabbits come from as well as the land where the damage is done. The whole trouble here is to find out from where the rabbits are coming. One does not deny that damage is done. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill said that damage is done on farms, but what this Bill seeks to do is to say that the damage is done by somebody else's rabbits and not by those bred on the farm itself. How can you tell that unless you have the right of inspection of the adjoining land? If the Bill is to be effective we should take every step we can to prevent the county council from being involved in litigation. If they are going to do their duty, and carry it out in the way they should, everything you can do to get the matter settled in an amicable way should be done. I think the Bill is badly conceived, and I hope the House will seriously consider whether the remedy they seek cannot be very much better carried out in another way.

Mr. CONNOLLY: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what he has in mind regarding the provisions of Subsection (5) of Clause 1, which says:
The powers conferred by this Act on n county council may he exercised by any committee of the council to which the exercise of those powers may be delegated.
Has the Minister in mind any special or ultimate powers to be conferred upon any committee under this Sub-section?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Committee which, obviously, will be invested with these powers is the County Agricultural Committee, which is a statutory committee set up in every county.

Mr. CONNOLLY: And their decision also would, of course, be subject to the endorsement of the whole of the council?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, not necessarily. They might delegate the powers to their committee.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — NAVAL PRIZE [TRANSFER OF FUND].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Question made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to make provision for the winding-up of the Naval Prize Fund and the dissolution of the Tribunal established under the Naval Prize Act, 1918, and that for that purpose there should be transferred from the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer—

(a) the right to receive any sums which otherwise would be payable into the Naval Prize Fund under Part I of the Schedule to the said Act;
(b) the liability for all such costs, charges, expenses, and claims as are mentioned in Part II of the said Schedule, and as would otherwise be chargeable on the Naval Prize Fund;
and that the sums required for the payment of the costs, charges, expenses, and claims, liability for which is so transferred, should he charged on and be payable out of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, and that in consideration for such transfer there should be paid out of the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer the sum of one hundred and twenty-six thousand five hundred pounds.—(King's Re-commendation signified.)—[Lieut.-Colonel Headlarn.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I must, first of all, express my surprise that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in whose name this Resolution stands, is not present. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam) going to take charge of this matter.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam) indicated assent.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has indicated that he is in charge, I shall address my questions to him. This is altogether a very suspicious business. We are given an explanatory memorandum in the Vote Office which explains nothing whatever except the fact that the original Naval Prize Bill in 1918 laid down certain things which we know already, and then that it is proposed to transfer this sum of £126,000 from the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer. That is practically all that we are told in the Financial Resolution. Before the Committee pass this Resolution we are entitled to have the following information at the very least. First of all, what is the total amount of money in the Naval Prize Fund? How much have the Admiralty in hand? This fund has been going on since 1914. All the captures that were adjudicated "good prize" and the cargoes that were condemned and sold have accrued to the fund. I believe that a very large sum of money—about £12,000,000—has been paid out to the officers and men of the Fleet. Incidentally, I consider that those who least needed the money have received the most, and that those who needed it the most have received the least. Whereas the naval captain's share has been several hundred pounds, the lowest class, the ship's boy, has received only a few shillings. I do not want to go into that. That was laid down at the time, and the Parliament of the day was responsible. A very large sum of money has certainly been paid out, but the proceeds of the capture of ships and of cargoes amounted to a tremendous sum.
I think we ought to know how much is left in the fund, because apparently, this £126,000 is not the only money available. The Admiralty seem to be keeping something for naval charities and I would like to know bow much it is, and also how much has been spent or is being spent from year to year on administration. If, for example—and this is my second question—the House does not agree with this Resolution and it is not possible to bring in the Bill, what would be the cost of keeping the fund in being? How much extra staff is required at the
Admiralty to administer it? That, I think, is rather important. The next question is, how much of the money that is being transferred to the Exchequer, or that the Admiralty have in hand, is due to claims which have not been made by those entitled to them? Every hon. Member in this House has had experience, I am sure, of men who have suddenly become aware of the fact that money is due to them either from a War Office bounty or from the Admiralty in prize money or from the Board of Trade in reparations for suffering in enemy action. We have these cases coming up even at the present time, after all these years, through no fault of the men. How many of these are claims that have not been made by seamen who are entitled to the money? I presume a record is kept by the Admiralty.
With regard to the question of the claims on the fund from men who served and were invalided and discharged and went back to their homes, perhaps to Australia, and did not know that they were entitled to any money, what steps do the Admiralty take to advertise for the men? Do they take the same course that is taken by lawyers when, for example, a distant niece or nephew or cousin is a beneficiary under the will of a rich relative who has died in England? In that case, the lawyers advertise for the whereabouts of so and so, who are invited to communicate with the said lawyers, from whom "they will hear something to their advantage." I live in the hope that some day I shall receive such an invitation, and shall be notified that someone has left me a well-deserved legacy. That is the way in which the legal profession get in touch with the heirs. The men who have claims on the Admiralty are the heirs of the Admiralty. What steps do they take to trace these sailors, many of whom would, no doubt, be very glad if they knew that money was being distributed. I understand that three distributions of prize money have been made. I received three payments of prize money, and I should be very glad to think that there is a fourth distribution coming. The last payment took place a good time after the end of the War, when it was only to be expected that many men had not put in claims and could not be traced. We ought to be satisfied on these points be-
fore we agree to the paying of this money into the Treasury. None of these facts are given to us in the Financial Resolution or in the explanation which accompanies it.
I should like to know what claims are expected, after all these years. I am not now referring to the claims of the men who are entitled to their share of prize money, but to the merchant houses, the merchant shipping companies, and others who may have counter claims for damages. If a ship was wrongly detained and was not adjudicated a good prize in the Admiralty Courts, there was a claim for compensation by the shippers, which was good in law. Surely, those claims have all been settled. If not, what is the estimate of the outstanding claims for compensation or demurrage or damage? I shall certainly oppose the handing over of this large sum of money to the tender mercy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, unless some good reason can be given. Unless some better explanation can be given, I must oppose the handing over of this nice little windfall of £126,500 to the Treasury. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer is hungry for windfalls. One day he robs the Road Fund; another day he robs the insurance reserve; another day he makes the brewers pay in advance. Then he makes the poor householders pay their taxes three times in one year, and so on.
Is it to be supposed that the finances of the country will so improve under this Government that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to resist the temptation to take this money from the sailors, this prize fund which they have earned, some of it very easily and some of it by very hard work? A certain amount of the money is going to naval charities. How much of the money is going to naval charities? The only sum that we know about is the amount that is going into the hungry maw of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and his avaricious chief. What naval charities are to benefit, and who is to choose them? Who is to exercise this largesse of the prize fund money? The naval charities that are deserving are some of the poor fellows who served in the Fleet during the War and who cannot now get work and are living and walking examples of naval charities. If there is any bounty going, I should like those men to have it.
We do not know the total amount in the hands of the Treasury. We do not know what claims are expected from ship owners for demurrage, damages, etc., and what the sum is likely to be. If, for example, £500,000 remains in the hands of the Treasury, why not make another distribution? All the records are in existence. It might amount only to 10s. for seamen, but many of them would be glad of it to-day. Has that idea been considered? In this matter the House is left in the dark. This is not the occasion to debate at length about naval prize money as a system. The system in the old wars was to distribute the prize money to the ships making the actual. captures. Some of the frigates were lucky and their crews were considerably enriched. The destroyers and patrollers had a chance of making huge prizes, and that led to great keenness on the part of the cruisers of that day. Some of the needy captains preferred to command a frigate, with the chance of making prize money, than to command a ship of the line. In the late War, that system did not prevail. It was decided that the whole of the money accruing from captures at sea should be pooled and go into the fund, and should be distributed equally amongst all those serving in seagoing ships. The ships of the Grand Fleet, which actually made no prizes, and the ships of the tenth cruiser squadron, which through the winter patrolled near the Arctic Circle and had the most difficult and arduous duty of examining ships, all got their share when the money came to be divided.
As in the old days when the naval captains and crews got the proceeds of their captures, so to-day the gentlemen of the long robe, the members of the legal profession, the most powerful trade union in the land, did not do badly out of the Prize Courts, and the officers of the Courts made quite a good thing out of the legal proceedings and formalities which had to be gone through. Nevertheless, a considerable sum in prize money did accrue to the officers and men of the Fleet. A great deal of the money that came into the fund came from ships that were never hailed at sea by a man-of-war. It came from ships that put in voluntarily for examination into Dover and Kirkwall, in order that they might receive their clearance and proceed on
their way. Our means of exerting pressure upon neutrals was so great—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that this Resolution merely deals with the transfer of the fund under the Naval Prize Act, 1918, and that this is not the occasion for entering into the general history of naval prize law.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I bow to your ruling, and I shall not pursue that historical line. The fact is that this money belongs to the Fleet; that is not gainsaid, whatever may be the means used for diverting cargoes into harbour during the War, and I hope the House will not allow it to be paid over to the Exchequer without very careful examination, and without full information from the Government. I see the Chief Whip in his place. He earned some prize money during the War. I see the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) in his place as a Lord of the Treasury. He, too, earned prize money. I hope that not only will they realise that their property is being paid over to Downing Street, but that the property of the men in the Fleet is being paid over to Downing Street. This is the residue that has not been paid out and, except for what is going to certain naval charities, it is to be paid over to the Treasury. I hope that the Chief Whip and the noble lord the hon. Member for South Battersea will support me in asking for the fullest information from the Parliamentary Secretary, to the Admiralty. I am only sorry that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here, because I should have liked to have had his assurance on the matter. As there is no satisfactory explanation in the Financial Resolution or in the explanatory White Paper, I am not prepared to agree to this substantial sum of money, the property of the Fleet, being handed over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: There are certain particulars in regard to this fund which we are entitled to know. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.- Commander Kenworthy) has covered most of the ground, as he generally does. We are entitled to look
at what I would call the particulars of this fund, or, in plain English, to the actual accounts of the fund. As far as I know, they are not actually available. It is an extraordinary thing that there should be this large sum of £126,500 remaining in the fund at this period, and I should like to know how much more besides this amount remains in the fund. A still more important point, which I have no doubt will be cleared up, relates to the claims on the fund. What claims are in prospect, and what has brought about the decision to close the fund? We ought to know what big claims there are in prospect, and also whether there are any claims which are pending at the present time. I should be much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary if he would clear up those points, because I feel confident that the Navy as a whole would like to know a little more about the naval prize fund.

8.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I hope not that I shall have any difficulty in making clear to the two hon. and gallant Members who have spoken that what the Admiralty are proposing to do in conjunction with the Treasury is a very right and proper course. At the beginning of the War the Crown granted as a prize fund to the Navy what are known as "Droits of the Crown" and it was decided that, in fairness to the whole of the Navy, this fund should be pooled and distributed in certain proportions which were laid down by Order in Council, that is to say, that the money should be paid to those serving in the Navy in varying proportions according to their rank and terms of service with the Fleet. A special tribunal was set up at the time to administer the fund, which was to be known as the Naval Prize Fund. It was to be regulated by this particular tribunal. The tribunal was to adjudicate on all the money that came in for distribution for the purpose for which it was designed, and any money that was over and above after distribution to the Fleet was to be devoted to Naval charitable purposes. This was laid down by the Act of Parliament in 1918. But in addition to paying out prize money to officers and men of the Navy there were certain claims that were brought against the Navy in the course of the War by
persons who were aggrieved by the action of the Navy in the taking of prizes and the tribunal had to hear these cases and adjudicate whether or not the Navy were responsible to the appellants. Tins entailed a very large amount of work, especially at one period. In consequence of the Crown's appearing as claimant for condemnation of all Prize, whether taken at sea or in port, it had been unnecessary, during the recent War for the Prize Courts to determine whether the proceeds became "Droits of Crown" which went to the Prize Fund or "Droits of Admiralty," which went to the Treasury. The, tribunal decided these and other points relating to the titles and liabilities of the Fleet as captors. In the old days if eases were decided against the Navy the sailors, the captors of the vessels, were held responsible for the damages and the tribunal found that the Prize Fund, as representing the captors, was liable for damages where the responsibility of the Navy was proved. The charges on the Fund under this head alone amounted to over £500,000. The total receipts of the Naval Prize Fund amounted to £16,035,000, against which must be set off the following disbursements—and these are the figures for which I was asked: the total shares paid to the Imperial Fleet amounted to £14,437,000; to Dominion sailors, £318,000; paid to Naval Charities—and this is exclusive of a, sum of £100,000 to which I shall refer in a moment—£195,000; paid as compensation in the cases to which I alluded just now, £611,500.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That is paid as damages?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes, as compensation in the cases where the Navy was held to be responsible for damages. Unpaid shares amount to £195,500, leaving a residue of £278,000. This makes a total sum of £16,035,000, and the figures I have given are approximately correct. I have already alluded to a sum of £100,000 which has been transferred to Greenwich Hospital, but a, lien still exists on it for share payments and it is in contemplation to pay a further sum of £50,000 to Greenwich Hospital out of the money that remains. The work in connection with the fund is nearing completion. It reaches finality in 1930, ten years from the commence-
ment of the distribution, and with the practical cessation of work in the Prize Courts, the continuance of the Naval Prize Tribunal is no longer necessary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that by the year 1930 no more claims can be made?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Yes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then would the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly say what steps are being taken to let the seamen know of that?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will come to that point if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me time. Although the receipt of moneys into the Fund has practically finished, there is no time limit to the prosecution of claims against the Fund in the Prize Courts, and it is desirable that a final settlement should be made which, while providing that any future liabilities can be met, will enable the Admiralty to wind up the Fund and to ascertain the final amount of the residue which may be disposed of in accordance with Section 3 of the Naval Prize Act, 1918; that is to say, how much more we should be left with to give away to naval charities.
The Bill which we propose to introduce is to enable the Tribunal to be discharged, to facilitate the winding up of the Fund as soon as possible on the determination of the period for payment of shares outstanding, and to enable the balance available for payment to Naval charities to be ascertained. The Bill proposes that, in consideration of the payment of a sum of £126,000 from the Naval Prize Fund to the Consolidated Fund, all further interest in sums Accruing to the Naval Prize Fund as "Droits of Crown" shall be transferred to the Exchequer, and, on the other hand, it imposes on the Exchequer the liability for all claims outstanding or which may arise hereafter which, under Part 2 of the Schedule of the Naval Prize Act, 1918, would have been chargeable against the Fund. There has been considerable negotiation between the Admiralty and the Treasury with regard to the sums to be placed at the disposal of the Treasury in regard to future claims, and it is considered that this sum of £126,000 should be sufficient to meet all the claims which may be made in future against the Crown. We are perfectly
satisfied that we are making a good bargain for the Fund. It is more or less an uncertain quantity as to exactly how many of these claims will be put forward, but there is the possibility that some will be pressed and there is no time limit. That is the reason we think it is desirable that we should be relieved of this responsibility, that the Prize Fund should be wound up and that the tribunal, whose work is practically finished, should be discharged.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked me what steps we had taken to let the people who were entitled to share in this prize money know that there is this chance for them. Press notices have been issued inviting application for unpaid prize money and medals. This invite is still being pursued, and it has been pursued at various periods ever since 1920. As a matter of fact, this sum of £195,000 represents the balance of the unpaid claims. A close examination is also made of all official records, in order that the individuals concerned in the outstanding cases may be traced. Although applications will continue to be considered until 1930, when the Naval Prize Fund will be finally closed, we think it probable, from the information that we have before us, that the great majority of these shares will never be paid. Whatever money is over goes to the Naval charities. Now I have been asked what charges there were and how this money had been spent. I have already mentioned Greenwich Hospital. I have a list here of a great many other Naval charities which have benefited already from the Fund. There are certain grants that have been made to the Dominions and to the Crown Colonies. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull would like me to give him this list.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How many are there?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot count them in a burry, but there are a very great many of them. There is the British Legion; there is the Queen Adelaide Naval Fund, the Royal School for Naval and Marine Officers' Daughters, the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust, Lloyds
Patriotic Fund, and many more of them, all deserving charities, which have already derived benefit from this particular source. I think I may ask hon. Members to raise no objection to grantting us this Financial Resolution. There will be plenty of opportunity on the Second Reading of the Bill to discuss further points. I hope hon. Members will consider that I have given a sufficient explanation in the course of these few remarks.

Mr. E. BROWN: I should like to put one point. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us, in connection with the balance available for distribution to naval charities, if he will consider the case of those seamen who were torpedoed in the War and who were in merchant ships, and lost their kit and chances of employment? They feel that they have not been adequately rewarded for the losses they have sustained in the course of their services, although they were not serving in the Navy. No doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a great deal of correspondence from Members representing ports on this point. There still is, in the minds of a large number of these men, a feeling that they have not been justly treated in the distribution of the money which has accrued under the Reparation Act. I think some share of this money should go to these deserving seamen who did such valuable service during the War.

Mr. GROVES: Am I entitled to move an Amendment to this Resolution?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): It will have to be a limiting Amendment.

Mr. GROVES: I was desirous of moving an Amendment that a certain sum should be set aside to add to the list of charities which the Parliamentary Secretary has read out. I can easily formulate an Amendment if I am entitled so to do. The men who served in the Fleet in view did great work for their country, but there are, I am afraid, a number of people who to-day are suffering under a grievance. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there were certain people who were aggrieved. I wonder whether it would be possible to move an Amendment Possibly the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take note of the suggestion that I make. Just as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has men-
tioned one class of men, so I know that there are many men in my constituency who are physically aggrieved as a result of their naval service, and are to-day living on Poor Law relief because they cannot get pensions, the medical officers of the Admiralty having said that their tuberculosis did not result from naval service. These men would indeed be benefited if there were added to the list of charities, as an act of good grace on the part of the Admiralty, the claims of these men, so that they could receive compensation and be removed from the list of paupers. The last time that the hon. and gallant. Gentleman presented an Estimate, I brought to his notice the case of a seaman, a gunner, who died in the London Hospital from a disease due to sandfly. The medical officers of the Admiralty certified that it was constitutional, but it was obvious that the complaint was contracted as a result of the man's service in the Navy in the East.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member's suggestion is out of order. The purpose of the Resolution is to transfer the Naval Prize Fund to the Exchequer. What the Exchequer will do with it is another matter. It may be possible to raise this matter at a later stage, but certainly it would not be possible at this stage to allocate the purpose to which such money is to be devoted when it gets to the Exchequer.

Mr. GROVES: I want to oppose the money going to the Exchequer, because I know that once it gets there it will never get to the sailors, whom I have in view.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member would be quite in order in opposing the Resolution, but an Amendment to allocate the money to some particular purpose when it gets to the Exchequer would not be in order. I understand that is the hon. Member's objective.

Mr. GROVES: That was my objective, but I had not moved it because I thought you would not agree with me.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I think I can satisfy the hon. Member on the point. The money placed at the disposal of the Exchequer is money kept so that if claims are made against the Prize Fund from outside there will be something with which to meet them. The money
that we are keeping is money that is to be used for the purpose of naval charity. I can assure the hon. Member that if he knows of any particular charity to which it, would be in the best interests of the Navy to dispose of some of this money, and if he will communicate with me, his suggestion will receive the greatest consideration.

Mr. GROVES: I will merely say that this grievance I have presented to the hon. and gallant Gentleman time after time. I know that these men are suffering and are unfortunate in having been certified by the medical officers as suffering from constitutional diseases. It is the duty of all of us to see whether we can do anything for these men at every conceivable opportunity when we know there is money available.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have received an answer to most of the questions that I raised. Hon. Members will agree that this Resolution is presented in a very vague form and that the explanatory memorandum is vaguer. We certainly want to know something more. I am in doubt on one point, and it is a point of some importance. We are going to transfer £126,500 against hypothetical claims that may be made against the Admiralty. Suppose that the claims are not made. What will happen to the money? Will it go to naval charities? I can understand that if the first sum is not claimed by 1930, it is going to naval charities, but what happens to the £126,500 which is being set aside against mercantile claims for damages? There is apparently no time limit. I should have thought that these foreign shippers, or whoever they were, would have claimed long ago. I cannot understand the immense delay. If the money is not claimed does it go to the redemption of debt or to naval charities? It is a very important point. I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury present. I understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has spoken for the Admiralty that there have been protracted negotiations between the Board of Admiralty and the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on this matter. Did they get any undertaking from the Treasury as to what was to happen if the money was not claimed by the interested parties?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The amount was first fixed between the Admiralty and the Treasury at £135,000. Since then claims have come in and reduced the figure, which now appears in the Resolution as £126,500. It is expected that claims will come in from time to time, and I do not see very much reason to anticipate that the whole amount will not be absorbed by the claims and costs. But, if not all absorbed, the balance will go into the general revenue.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then that is not satisfactory, and I intend to oppose the proposal. You are taking money from the Naval Prize Fund and passing it over to the Treasury against hypothetical claims that may be made 10 years or 12 years after the War by some foreign merchant who may have been aggrieved by one of His Majesty's ships, and in case the £126,000 is not claimed it is going to the general revenue account. That really will not do at all. I do not know whether it is possible to move any limiting Amendment, by adding at the end of the Resolution some such words as, "and unless claimed to revert to the Admiralty," so that the Admiralty may dispose of it? I apologise for not having handed in an Amendment before, but it is because we have been left in the dark and have had to drag out information as with a corkscrew.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure yet whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggested Amendment would read. If the hon. and gallant. Member will hand it to me I will look into it, and meantime perhaps one of his friends will continue the Debate.

Mr. BARR: I shall make some relative observations for a moment or two. I would like to ask about a particular case I have in view, relating to the remote Isle of St. Kilda, where there was a wireless station. Naturally the enemy bombarded it, and they destroyed one of our churches. They caused damage to the extent of £450. Repeated efforts have been made to get compensation for that damage. I believe a great deal of effort was made in different parts of the House of Commons to secure compensation. I gather that under the scheme now pro-
posed the enemy will be compensated, and I do not object to that if they have a claim, but when we have a claim of this kind arising within our own borders —a just, and, I believe, an admitted claim—I ask, can it not be taken into consideration within the ambit of the present proposals? If this matter has not already been provided for we might make some arrangement for meeting the case. Rather than allow this money to go to the general revenue you ought to make some special provision to meet such a claim, and I should be glad of an assurance, either that the case falls within the provision already made, or that the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the Admiralty is prepared to make some special arrangement for dealing with it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, at the end, to add the words:
to be held in trust on Admiralty account.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I intervene for only a few minutes because, possibly, the situation is not well known to the majority of the Members of the Committee. This problem was considered by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons and, while there was no difficulty about the winding up of the fund, and, probably, no doubt as to the wisdom of that course, it was certainly understood that there would be many claims against the sum of £135,000 or, as it is now presented the sum of £126,500. That was certainly very clearly in my mind during the course of this Debate, but when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke a few minutes ago it was plain that there might be a residue and that, in fact, we were transferring to the Exchequer the amount by which this sum might exceed any claims which came in against it. In other words, we were leaving the balance, if any, to go into the general revenue of the State. That is not what was expected by those who had studied the exact position of the fund, because the broad object was to provide for ascertained claims—for liabilities and nothing more—and that any balance was to be free to go back to be used for naval charities, or whatever other objects might be approved. It is
perfectly clear that if we pass the Financial Resolution in its present form we transfer the sum of £126,000 to the Exchequer and I imagine that if the Financial Resolution were passed that decision would be irrevocable. In other words that Resolution would fix the character of the Bill. Therefore, it will also be plain to the Committee that any Amendment must be made at this stage and it occurs to me that the proper form of Amendment is the insertion of words at the end of the Resolution providing that any balance over and above the amount required for the satisfaction of valid claims—which, of course, must he met—should not go to the general revenue of the country but should revert to the fund and to these charities which I am sure all sections of the House desire to protect.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: I should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what will be the position if the amount of the claims exceeds the sum of money which has been set apart to meet them. If more money has to be provided, surely the Treasury will have to find the extra amount. Is it not the case that in fact what has been done has been to arrive at the closest possible estimate of the amount of the claims to be made, and that then the Treasury is to bear the burden of meeting the actual claims or take the benefit of any advantage which may arise. If this Amendment were passed, it would be fixed so that any balance would go back to the naval charities. That would leave the Treasury in the position of having to bear the burden of any excess over the estimated claims and leave the naval charities in the position of taking any advantage which might arise.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: My hon. Friend has made my reply for me.

Mr. E. BROWN: It is not satisfactory.

Mr. SAMUEL: If a larger sum for claims has to be paid, the Treasury will have to find it. We have only fixed upon this figure of £126,500 as the closest estimate we can make. I do not say that the amount needed will not be more. It may be more; but it it is more then the money will come from Exchequer funds. It is, therefore, a give-and-take estimate and within a limited scope. It may be that the Exchequer will have to
find more money than the figure now under discussion, and in that case the argument of my right hon. Friend opposite falls to the ground. It is the nearest estimate we could make, and I hope the Committee will regard it as such.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is this sum of £126,500 actually comparable with the prospective claims? That is a point which seems to be of the greatest importance. Is it merely some sort of round figure, without any real direct connection with the claims that are pending or are under consideration?

Mr. SAMUEL: It is the outcome of a careful estimate made by the Treasury, the Admiralty and the Tribunal itself. The details were carefully balanced up and that was the figure which was arrived at after exhaustive examination.

Mr. E. BROWN: I think the Committee will agree that more needs to be said from the point of view of the men in the merchant service and the Navy. I find the answer which has been given is quite inconclusive. It is obvious there has been something in the nature of a bargain between the Treasury and the Admiralty and, in this matter, unlike most matters, the Admiralty or those for whom the Admiralty ought to be responsible are going to come off badly. This transaction is in the nature of a gamble, and a gamble I understand to be a transaction where somebody's gain is somebody else's loss or where everybody loses. When you give work for money that is the law of labour; when you give goods for goods that is the law of exchange. When you give something because you love a person that is the law of love, but in this case it is the law of bias which seems to be operating and the bias is in favour of the Treasury.
It is quite obvious that any claims which are not now put in are very unlikely to arise between now and 1930, and there seems to be a heavy bias in favour of the Treasury in regard to the allocation of this money. The limitation proposed in the Amendment does not interfere with the Treasury getting the money, if the claims are made, but it makes sure that if the claims are not made the money can be turned to the advantage of the charities and of those to whom the advantage ought to be belong. I am bound to ask for more information. The Committee
would be unwise to allow the Resolution to pass in its present form without a great deal more information. There are Members of all parties sitting for seaports who know that many of the men who served both in the merchant service and in the Royal Navy are in need of assistance, and who must feel that these men have not had their just claims met out of these various funds. If there is £100,000 or £80,000, or whatever the sum may be, they ought to have some attention from the Government. The Amendment does not interfere with the Treasury getting the money if the claims are made against the Fund, but it gives a chance for review when we know the facts. Therefore, I hope hon. Members on all sides will hesitate before passing this Resolution and will support the Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The position is quite clear, and I do not think there need be any difficulty in the way of the Government accepting the Amendment. The Treasury has made the best bargain it could, and it reckons that this £126,500 safeguards the position, but, supposing these hypothetical claims amount to more than £126,500, who will find the extra?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The Treasury.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Treasury! It does not come out of the hon. Gentleman's pockets, but out of the pockets of the taxpayers. The whole nation Supposing, on the other hand, the claims come to only '2100,000, there is a nice little nest egg of £26,500. That will not make much difference to the Treasury, but it will make a great difference to the naval charities. What we have to decide is whether the very problematical loss to the Treasury shall be spread over the whole nation, or whether the problematical gain to the Treasury, which is not so problematical, shall accrue to naval charities. After all, I would remind the Committee that the Naval Prize Fund was built up by captures at sea by the Fleet, and I do not think there can be any hesitation as to where this matter should lie. If there is any profit to be made, it surely ought to go to the naval charities, and if there is any loss, let the whole nation bear it.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): The whole
discussion turns on whether or not the bargain made between the Admiralty and tht Treasury is a good one for those who might be recipients of something from the Naval Prize Fund. It has been very carefully considered, and we came to the conclusion that it was a fair one. Nothing that has occurred this evening has shown that it is not. It must be a matter of speculation to some extent, but if hon. Members, before the Bill which will be based on this Resolution is introduced, would like us to look further into the financial aspect of the thing, I do not say that we should come to any different conclusion, but I would be quite prepared to give further consideration to it before actually introducing the Bill.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty would be excellent if in practice it amounted to anything so far as this House was concerned, but, of course, if the Financial Resolution goes through in its present form, that is a decision for the purposes of the Bill, and progress could only be made if the whole thing were re-started, which, I imagine, the Government will not contemplate for a moment. As a result of this discussion, the position is now perfectly plain. After all, all that the Treasury desire to do is to get accurate and sufficient cover for the claims which will be made and which must be met. Surely it is quite easy for the Treasury and the Admiralty to say that they will agree upon such a sum within these limits as will meet these claims. I quite agree, as the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. O. Stanley) pointed out, that the Treasury will have to find the money if the claims exceed the amount of £126,500, but that is not an adequate reply to the point which arises if the claims happen to be very much less, because you do not want to take more out. of this fund than meets that exact situation, which we all recognise we have to cover.
What is the difficulty in the way of the Government accepting an Amendment on the lines proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend? We seek to carry out what we believe to be the intention of the Government and to rob this Resolution of its speculative element. There is no reason why you should have a gamble of a mild character or a speculative element in a Resolution of this kind. It is
quite unnecessary. It is not the intention of the House, and, as I understand it, it is not the intention of either the Treasury or the Admiralty. Nothing will be lost if, in fact, this Resolution is amended on these lines, and the only difficulty which I can see at the moment is that you would perpetuate the administrative machinery and the other details which you want to sweep away, and in which you wish to economise. There is no loss in that whatever, if this is delayed a little, the Resolution amended on these lines, the Treasury safeguarded in exactly the sum required, and the Naval Prize Fund not penalised, as I am afraid it will be under this Resolution.

Mr. MACLEAN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I move this in order to give the Government an opportunity of reconsidering this matter. The First Lord of the Admiralty said they were prepared, if they got this Resolution, to reconsider the whole matter before the Bill is brought in, but after all, the Bill, however much consideration they might give to it, would require to be based upon the Resolution as it is presently worded, and consequently, so far as any reconsideration is concerned, any alteration in the Bill would require to be by Amendment and the acceptance of the Amendment by the First Lord.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If we pass this Resolution now, we only have a Report stage, which may come on at midnight any night, and this Motion to report Progress is not put forward as an attempt to embarrass the Government. We are not, to use a colloquial term, ragging for this, but trying to get something which I believe the First Lord himself will see might be of value to the Fleet. The Amendment may not cost the Treasury anything, but it makes certain that no profit is made by the Treasury out of the Naval Prize Fund. That is all that we want, and surely all hon. Members will support that.

Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite ready to examine this question further, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, I myself will be prepared to move to report Progress in order that we may look into it. Nobody wants to do any injustice, and we do not want to miss the chance of making a good bargain, but I am quite ready, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, to move to report Progress and to reconsider this with the Treasury.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am very much obliged to the First Lord. The Amendment was drafted very hurriedly, because we did not really know the facts until we had the explanation, but in view of the undertaking of the First Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Bridgeman.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of The Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Otley Gas Company, which was presented on the 19th March and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Hemel Hempsted District Gas Company, which was presented on the 27th March and published, be approved."—[Mr, H. Williams.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes before Nine o'Clock.